Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

NEW WRITS.

For Borough of Portsmouth (North Division) in the room of Sir Bertram Godfray Falle, Baronet, called up the House of Peers.

For County of East Suffolk (Lowestoft Division) in the room of Sir Gervals Squire Chittick Rentoul, K.C., one of the Magistrates of the Police Courts of the Metropolis.—[Captain Margesson.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable).

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Crosby Litherland and Waterloo Joint Cemetery District) Bill.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Wirral Joint Hospital District) Bill.

Bills to be read a Second time To-morrow.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (ROCHESTER, CHATHAM, AND GILLINGHAM JOINT SEWERAGE DISTRICT) BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the Rochester, Chatham, and Gillingham Joint Sewerage District," presented by Sir Hilton Young; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 49.]

TRADE AND NAVIGATION.

Copy ordered of
Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom for each month during the year 1934."—[Mr. Runciman.]

CIVIL CONTINGENCIES FUND, 1932.

Copy ordered of
Accounts of the Civil Contingencies Fund, 1932, showing (1) the Receipts and Payments in connection with the fund in the year ended the 31st day of March, 1933; (2) the Distribution of the Capital of the fund at the commencement and close of the year; together with Copy of the Correspondence with the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon."—[Mr. Hore-Belisha.]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

RUSSIA.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the value of imports from and exports to Russia from 1st December to the latest available date?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): During the month of December, 1933, the total declared value of the imports into the United Kingdom of merchandise consigned from the Soviet Union amounted to £1,317,487. Exports to the Soviet Union amounted to £216,244, including re-exports valued at £82,941.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if an export quota has now been agreed with Russia under the wheat convention?

Dr. BURGIN: No, Sir, but I understand that the matter is still under discussion between the Soviet Union and the four major exporting countries.

Mr. WHITE: In the event of an agreement not being made with Russia on this point, will the other parties to the Convention still remain bound?

Dr. BURGIN: I am afraid that I shall have to ask for notice of that question.

EMPIRE TRADE.

Mr. LYONS: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the export and import trading figures for the six months ended 31st December, 1933, or the nearest convenient date between this country and Canada, Australia and New Zealand respectively?

Dr. BURGIN: As the answer involves a tabular statement, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. LYONS: May I ask my hon. Friend whether these figures show that the British Empire is still our best customer?

Table showing the total declared value of merchandise imported into and exported from the United Kingdom and registered during the six months ended 31st December, 1933, as consigned from and to the undermentioned countries.


Country from and to which consigned.
Total Imports into the United Kingdom.
Exports from the United Kingdom.


Produce and manufactures of the United Kingdom.
Imported merchandise.





£'000.
£'000.
£'000.


Canada
…
…
25,804
10,306
702


Australia
…
…
22,681
11,366
401


New Zealand
…
…
14,971
5,194
135

TRADE AGREEMENTS AND NEGOTIATIONS.

Mr. WHITE: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade with what countries negotiations for trade agreements are now proceeding?

Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): Negotiations are at present proceeding with the Soviet Union, Estonia and Latvia, and negotiations with Lithuania are being opened this week.

FOREIGN IMPORT DUTIES (DISCRIMINATION).

Mr. HANNON: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what foreign countries have in operation discriminatory duties against British goods; and if the Government contemplate the termination of existing trade agreements with such countries?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The only existing case of any material importance in which discriminatory duties are imposed against United Kingdom goods is the French import turnover tax. The French Government has undertaken to remove this differentiation so soon as the necessary legislation can be passed. In these circumstances no action on the lines suggested in the last part of the question is in contemplation.

Mr. HANNON: I asked my hon. and gallant Friend whether His Majesty's Government will enunciate some definite policy for dealing with these questions as they arise? Will he consider the advisability

Dr. BURGIN: Perhaps the hon. Member had better wait to see the statement.

Following is the statement:

of placing the Board of Trade in a position to take definite steps at once if discrimination is exercised against us?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: We can under the Import Duties Act take steps in a great many cases.

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: Having regard to the statements made yesterday in the House that action will be taken in 10 days' time, will arrangements be made in the meantime so that there is no delay afterwards?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Yes, Sir.

SPAIN (BRITISH MOTOR CARS).

Mr. HANNON: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the negotiations with the Spanish Government in relation to the duty on motor cars of British manufacture entering Spain being on the same basis of import duty as cars imported from France have been completed; and from what date the rebate on British cars becomes operative?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Yes, Sir; the concession to French cars has been extended to cars of United Kingdom origin with effect as from 1st October last.

Mr. HANNON: In cases such as this, may I ask again whether, if action of this kind is taken by the Spanish or any other Government, retaliatory measures will at once be taken so that this country can exercise its rights?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: We have obtained satisfaction without resorting to retaliatory measures, but, if necessary, they are there to be used.

Mr. HANNON: But is not the process of getting satisfaction entirely too slow in dealing with these cases?

BRITISH SHIPS (FOREIGN PURCHASES).

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number and the aggregate registered tonnage of British vessels transferred to foreign flags in the last three years, with the tonnage transferred to Panama, Finland, Yugoslavia, and Greece, respectively?

Dr. BURGIN: As the answer contains a tabular statement I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. GRENFELL: Will the hon. Gentleman state whether there have been very large transfers of British tonnage to some of these relatively unimportant countries, and whether there is some explanation for the disproportionate number of ships transferred to these countries, such as Panama and Greece?

Dr. BURGIN: I think that the hon. Gentleman will find the whole of the figures for Panama, Finland, Greece and

Vessels of 100 tons gross and upwards formerly registered at ports in the United Kingdom the registers of which were reported to the Registrar General of Shipping and Seamen as having been closed on sale of the vessels to foreigners during each of the undermentioned years.


—
No. of Vessels.
Tons, Gross.


1931
…
…
…
172
570,654


1932
…
…
…
167
645,862


1933
…
…
…
237
972,466



Total
…
…
576
2,188,982

Yugoslavia are given for each of the three years for which he asks. Whether it is an important transfer or not is a matter of opinion. There is a considerable rise in the number of vessels transferred to Greece.

Mr. GRENFELL: Can the hon. Gentleman give an explanation for this transfer?

Dr. BURGIN: I think that that is a separate question, and perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice of it.

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: Is the question of the sale of ships to foreign countries a subject for discussion in the negotiations now taking place between the Government and the Chamber of Shipping?

Dr. BURGIN: It is certainly an allied question which might properly be discussed at the same time if there is any general desire.

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: Have the Government any intention of putting an embargo on the sale of British ships to foreign countries?

Dr. BURGIN: That is quite another question.

Following is the statement:

SILK DUTIES.

Mr. LYONS: 25.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can now make a statement with reference to the Silk Duties and the suspension of their consideration by the Import Duties Advisory Committee?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to him on the 5th December.

Mr. LYONS: In view of the injurious effect that the delay has had upon the industry and employment concerned, may I ask whether a conclusion will be made of these negotiations in the very near future?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot say when the conclusion will take place, but I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that no time will be lost.

FINANCE AND INDUSTRY.

Mr. ALBERY: 27.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can give any information relating to the setting up of the credit institution for the purpose of providing finance for the development of medium and small-sized manufacturing and trading concerns?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I presume that my hon. Friend has in mind the statements made in the report of the Macmillan Committee regarding the representations which had been made to them on this subject. The committee clearly had in mind that the setting up of such a credit institution was a matter which should be pursued on an ordinary commercial basis. I understand that the matter has been, and still is, under consideration in the City.

SHIPPING INDUSTRY.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the present position of British shipping?

Dr. BURGIN: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the statement made by my right hon. Friend in the Debate on this subject on 13th December last, and to the reply I gave yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford South (Mr. Stourton).

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: In view of the national importance of British shipping,
may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he can state when measures will be brought forward in order to enable British shipping to compete with that of foreign countries, which in fact in every case to-day is subsidised in one form or another?

Dr. BURGIN: The Government are very concerned about the position of British shipping, but we are waiting for a good deal of information from the shipping industry itself.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Cannot the hon. Gentleman say when they are likely to receive the whole of that information and decide upon it, as this matter is so important?

Dr. BURGIN: No time will be lost once the information is received, but a good deal of information has been asked for, and the replies have not yet come in.

JAPANESE COMPETITION.

Sir JOHN HASLAM (for Captain FULLER): 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can now state what is the policy of the Government regarding Japanese competition?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I gave yesterday to the hon. Members for Platting (Mr. Chorlton) and Salford South (Mr. Stourton), and to the further answer which I shall give later to-day in reply to a Private Notice Question.

Mr. REMER (by Private Notice): asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can make any statement as to his visit to Manchester during last week?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: As my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, my right hon. Friend went to Lancashire last week in order to obtain first-hand information regarding the views of the cotton industry on the various problems confronting them, including the problem of Japanese competition. With this object he met the Special Committee which has been set up by the industry with regard to Japanese competition, and he also had meetings with representatives of the spinning, manufacturing and merchanting sections of the industry, with representatives of the operatives, and with the Joint Committee of Cotton Trade Organisations. From all sides my right
hon. Friend received representations regarding the urgency of the problems presented by Japanese competition, and he assured the industry that the Government fully realised the importance of the time factor and that they could not afford to delay. I am, happily, now in a position to add to this statement. Within the last 24 hours His Excellency the Japanese Ambassador has informed His Majesty's Government, under instructions from the Japanese Government, that the following representatives have been duly authorisd by the Japanese industries concerned to enter into formal negotiations with the representatives of British industries:—

Representing the Cotton Industry of Japan:

Mr. Gentaro Okada.
Mr. Gota Miyake.
Mr. Kazuyoshi Mimura.
Mr. Masao Kawaguchi.

Representing the Rayon Textile Exporting Association:

Mr. Katsunosuke Shimada.

This information has been communicated to the Special Committee in Manchester, and I trust that arrangements will be made forthwith for commencement of the discussions.

Mr. REMER: In view of the necessity of obtaining further information from the hon. and gallant Gentleman and the President of the Board of Trade, I beg to give notice that at the earliest possible opportunity I shall raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.

IMPORT DUTIES (POTATOES).

Mr. T. SMITH (for Mr. T. WILLIAMS): 30.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the amount of duty paid on the potatoes imported into this country during the past 12 months, and comparable figures for the year 1932?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): The approximate amounts of duty collected on potatoes during each of the calendar years 1932 and 1933 were as follow:

£


1932
…
…
…
354,000


1933
…
…
…
424,000

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (WAR OFFICE).

Mr. WHITE: 11.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what progress has been made during the financial year 1933 to 1934 in the introduction of mechanisation into the War Office and the reduction of redundant staff?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): No additional mechanical methods have been introduced into the War Office itself during the current financial year, but experiments have been and are still in progress in certain outstation establishments.

Mr. WHITE: Is the War Office keeping in touch with the developments in other Departments and also with the latest practice outside?

Mr. COOPER: Yes, Sir.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Is the War Office absolutely efficient in every detail?

Mr. COOPER: Yes, Sir.

SCOTLAND (POLICE CONSOLIDATION).

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Government intends to take action to implement the recommendations of the Committee on Police Consolidation in Scotland?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): I have asked police authorities and others concerned to send me any observations they desire to make on the report of this Committee on or before the 31st instant. These observations will be carefully considered and the decision of the Government will be announced as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

SWANSEA DOCKS (SHIPMENT FACILITIES).

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 13.
asked the Secretary for Mines the results of representations made to him by Members during the last three years on the question of providing suitable tipping equip-
ment at Swansea docks, so as to avoid the breakage of coal and loss of time in shipping coal cargoes?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): The subject of coal shipment and anti-breakage facilities has engaged the constant attention of the Mines Department and of the Ministry of Transport during the past three years. In 1931, following a conference convened by the then Secretary for Mines and the Minister of Transport, committees representative of all the trade interests concerned were set up in the various coal shipping districts to determine what types of anti-breakage appliances would be most effective, and what steps should be taken to secure their installation. Considerable progress has been made in South Wales, particularly at Swansea, where nine anti-breakage appliances have been installed during the last three years. I am informed by the Great Western Railway Company that a further appliance will be fitted to the hoist now under construction at King's Dock, and that the company, in conjunction with the traders, are at present conducting experiments at Swansea with a view to further improving the coal shipment facilities at that port.

Mr. GRENFELL: Will the hon. Gentleman convey a suggestion to the Great Western Railway Company that they should, in addition to consulting the traders, ask the workmen engaged in this work for practical suggestions for improvement?

Mr. BROWN: I will certainly do that. I should like to call the hon. Member's attention to the fact that there is a South Wales Coal Shipment Advisory Committee, and, if representations are to be made in this subject about a local problem, that is the appropriate body to whom to make them. The hon. Member will remember that I wrote to him some time ago about that.

OVERTIME.

Mr. CHARLES BROWN: 14.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of hours of overtime worked at the following collieries during the months of October, November, and December: Tibshelf colliery, Derbyshire, Rufford and Blidworth collieries, Nottinghamshire?

Mr. E. BROWN: During the three months in question the total number of hours overtime worked was 1,787 at Tibshelf colliery, 1,279 at Rufford and 630 at Blidworth. These totals represent 1.64 per cent., .36 per cent., and .23 per cent. respectively of the total hours worked underground during the same period at these three collieries.

Mr. C. BROWN: May I ask the Secretary for Mines, in view of the growing practice of working overtime in mines, whether he has anything further to report with regard to the matter he mentioned some time ago in the House? He told us that his Department were having investigations made into this matter, and I would like to know whether those investigations have been made and what is happening?

Mr. E. BROWN: If the hon. Member wants an answer on that point, I should prefer to have the question put down; but I would say at the moment that I am proposing to begin an investigation in Lancashire almost immediately. If further information is wanted, I should prefer to have notice.

Mr. C. BROWN: I wish to say that I consider the answer of the Secretary for Mines quite unsatisfactory, and I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

IRISH FREE STATE.

Mr. HANNON: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if any further negotiations have been entered into during the Recess for the settlement of outstanding difficulties between this country and the Irish Free State and with what, if any, result?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): No, Sir.

Mr. HANNON: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether any representations have been made to him from any of His Majesty's Dominions that this subject ought somehow or other to be brought to a definite conclusion at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. THOMAS: No one would welcome a satisfactory settlement of this question
more than His Majesty's Government. No communication of any sort has been made to us by any of the Dominions, for the reason that they believe that it is a domestic matter between the Irish Free State and ourselves. We, on the other hand, have never closed the door to any settlement.

Mr. HANNON: Would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared, when the deficit on the annuities is balanced by the special duties, to consider some means by which this festering sore in the body politic of the Empire might be healed?

Mr. THOMAS: I repeat that no one would welcome a settlement more than the British Government; but it would be a mistake to assume that you help towards a settlement by showing that you are not prepared to stand up for your rights.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: When the right hon. Gentleman says that no one would welcome a settlement more than the British Government, will he give a sign that he is prepared to make such a settlement?

Mr. THOMAS: I have repeatedly done so. As recently as Saturday night I said so, and it is responded to by a statement from the other side that they do not believe that they are entitled to pay the dues, and that they do not intend to pay. I cannot go on merely repeating that we want a settlement; we expect some response.

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: Is it not a fact that these dues are not paid by the Irish Free State Government?

Sir WILLIAM WAYLAND: May I ask how long it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to remain the armchair upon which Mr. de Valera sits?

NEWFOUNDLAND.

Mr. MANDER: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he has any statement to make with regard to the situation in Newfoundland; and what progress has been made with the new administration?

Mr. THOMAS: His Majesty has approved the appointment of the following to be members of the Commission of Government to be established in Newfoundland:

The Honourable F. C. Alderdice.
Sir John Hope Simpson, C.I.E.
Mr. W. R. Howley, K.C.
Mr. T. Lodge, C.B.
The Honourable J. C. Puddester.
Mr. E. N. R. Trentham.

Of these, Sir John Hope Simpson, Mr. Lodge and Mr. Trentham have been chosen from the United Kingdom, and the other three from Newfoundland.

Letters Patent constituting the new Government have been issued and will come into force on their being proclaimed in the Island. Those of the Commissioners who are now in this country will sail for Newfoundland on the 2nd February, and the new Government will be formally inaugurated on their arrival.

MOTORING INSURANCE (THIRD PARTY RISKS).

Mr. T. SMITH: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state the number of convictions for failure to insure against third-party risk for the past 12 months?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): Preliminary figures which have been obtained show that during 1933 there were 12,479 convictions in England and Wales on charges of failing to insure against third-party risks.

UNEMPLOYMENT (TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS).

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 18.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will state the number of claims for transitional benefit which have been considered from November, 1931, to the latest available date, with the percentage of awards of full benefit, reduced benefit, and nil benefit, respectively; and whether he will give the numbers separately for Glamorganshire, Monmouthshire, Carmarthenshire, Durham, Lancashire, and London, with the approximate percentage of the population unemployed in each case?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): As the reply includes Tables of figures I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

1. Determinations by Public Assistance Authorities and Commissioners on Applications for Transitional Payments, 12th November, 1931, to 2nd December, 1933.


Period.
Total number of Determinations.
Allowed at Maximum Benefit Rates.
Allowed at Lower Rates.
Needs of Applicants held not to justify payment.


Great Britain:


Per cent.
Per cent.
Per cent.


12th November, 1931–23rd January, 1932*
…
2,198,739
50.7
34.8
14.5


25th January, 1932–2nd December, 1933:







Initial Applications
…
2,148,650
50.0
32.4
17.6


Renewals and Revisions
…
14,684,941
57.6
38.6
3.8


Glamorganshire (Administrative County and County Boroughs):







12th November, 1931–23rd January, 1932*
…
106,952
91.6
5.7
2.7


25th January, 1932–2nd December, 1933:







Initial Applications
…
90,074
87.5
8.9
3.6


Renewals and Revisions
…
937,483
90.4
8.9
0.7


Monmouthshire (Administrative County and County Borough):







12th November, 1931–23rd January, 1932*
…
40,433
69.4
27.4
3.2


25th January, 1932–2nd December, 1933:







Initial Applications
…
34,971
70.5
24.7
4.8


Renewals and Revisions
…
343,995
77.8
21.2
1.0


Carmarthenshire (Administrative County):







12th November, 1931–23rd January, 1932*
…
7,764
72.3
18.3
9.4


25th January, 1932–2nd December, 1933:







Initial Applications
…
8,711
86.7
7.1
6.2


Renewals and Revisions
…
59,396
87.8
10.0
2.2


Durham (Administrative County and County Boroughs):







12th November, 1931–23rd January, 1932*
…
173,113
79.0
16.7
4.3


25th January, 1932–2nd December, 1933:







Initial Applications
…
123,781
75.2
17.0
7.8


Renewals and Revisions
…
1,370,812
79.1
19.2
1.7


Lancashire (Administrative County and County Boroughs):







12th November, 1931–23rd January, 1932*
…
421,837
26.5
51.1
22.4


25th January, 1932–2nd December, 1933:







Initial Applications
…
318,044
27.9
49.4
22.7


Renewals and Revisions
…
2,536,751
34.3
60.2
5.5


London (Administrative County and City):







12th November, 1931–23rd January, 1932*
…
122,805
54.9
19.3
25.8


25th January, 1932–2nd December, 1933:







Initial Applications
…
201,297
55.5
17.6
26.9


Renewals and Revisions
…
710,544
67.2
23.5
9.3


* The figures for the period 12th November, 1931, to 23rd January, 1932, include renewals and revisions as well as initial applications; separate figures for initial applications are not available.

CROWN FARM, BILLINGBOROUGH (DISMISSAL).

Mr. T. SMITH: 19.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that a farm worker named Chessum was discharged from employment on the Crown farm at Pointon, Billingborough, as a result of certain activities in the by-election in the Rutland and Stamford Parliamentary Division; and whether he will have inquiries made as to why this man was thrown out of employment?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): I am satisfied after thorough inquiry that this man was discharged from employment for failure on more than one occasion to carry out orders given to him by the farm manager and the foreman, and for insubordinate language in the presence of other men working on the farm. His dismissal had nothing to do with his political activities.

Mr. SMITH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is the local opinion that his statement gives an excuse rather than the reason for the dismissal? Is he aware that the farm agent, who was a very active worker during the recent election, had an altercation with this man because the man had party colours in his windows; and will he reconsider the matter and let this man start work again?

Mr. ELLIOT: I have made a very thorough inquiry into the report of the farm manager. On one occasion the man was reprimanded for not having steam-up in a threshing set, although he had previously received instructions to do so, and on another occasion he had disobeyed definite instructions given to him with regard to the conveyance of a threshing set from one farm to another farm, with the result that half-a-day was lost on the farm. My hon. Friend will see my difficulty in further investigating a case which has been investigated already.

Mr. SMITH: With all due respect to the right hon. Gentleman, the fact of the matter is—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now giving information.

Mr. SMITH: May I give notice that, owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall draw attention to this matter on the Adjournment in the near future?

IRAQ (ASSYRIAN REFUGEES).

Mr. MANDER: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the present position with regard to the negotiations being carried on by the League of Nations for removing the Assyrians from Iraq and establishing them in some other country?

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Eden): The committee which the Council of the League of Nations has set up to deal with this problem are at present investigating a scheme for the settlement of any Assyrians who may wish to leave Iraq on land owned by a British company of high standing in the State of Paraná in Southern Brazil. The Brazilian Government have generously offered on certain conditions to accept the whole of the Assyrians in groups of 500 families a month, as and when the company can provide for their settlement. Meanwhile, the committee have thought it essential to assure themselves, by means of a local investigation, that the land proposed is suitable for the purpose, and that the conditions are such as to enable the Assyrians to become a useful element in Brazil. They have entrusted this investigation to Brigadier J. G. Browne, until recently Officer Commanding the Assyrian Levies in Iraq. Brigadier Browne, who will be assisted by a representative of the Nansen Office at Geneva, and by the Counsellor of the Swiss Legation at Rio de Janeiro, left for Brazil on the 27th January.

Mr. MANDER: May I ask whether the Government have come to any decision as to making any financial contribution towards this work, in view of the special responsibility of this country in this matter?

Mr. EDEN: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put that question down.

Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: Is there no possibility of getting the Turks to take them back to their original old home?

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: Is there any chance of Brazil taking all the minority communities in India?

POOR LAW RELIEF, WALES.

Mr. DAVID DAVIES: 21.
asked the Minister of Health the number of persons
in receipt of Poor Law relief in each county in Wales on the last available date, giving separate figures for men, women, and children, together with figures for the same period of the previous year?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): The total number of persons (men, women and children) in receipt of poor relief, excluding rate-aided patients in mental hospitals, persons in receipt of domiciliary medical relief only, and casuals, in the 13 administrative counties and the four county boroughs in Wales (including Monmouthshire) on Saturday, the 13th January, 1934, was 149,027, and on Saturday, the 14th January, 1933, 140,407? I will send the hon. Member a statement showing the numbers in each county and county borough. The weekly returns from which these figures have been obtained do not distinguish the numbers of men, women and children, but I will, if he desires, send the hon. Member a statement showing separately the number of men, women and children in receipt of poor relief in each county and county borough on 1st January of the two years when the detailed returns relating to this year are available.

BRITISH SOMALILAND (BOYS' PUNISHMENT).

Mr. ALBERY: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now make any statement concerning the alleged ill-treatment of children in British Somaliland?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): During the absence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies in East Africa, I have been asked to reply to Questions on his behalf. I am sure that I speak for the whole House in saying that we greatly regretted to hear of his illness. I am glad to be able to add that the most recent report is that he is making progress.
The alleged ill-treatment refers to punishment of boys for refusing to carry
out the task of keeping the streets of the native village at Sheikh clear of refuse. This duty was assigned to the village boys with the acquiescence of the tribal elders, and on two occasions only within the last four years have boys been punished, the punishment awarded being four strokes with a light cane. No complaint has been received from the villagers of Sheikh.

COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT SCHEMES.

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will furnish this House with full particulars of the development schemes recommended by the Colonial Development Advisory Committee since its inception, and what is the total of the expenditure involved; and is he satisfied that this committee is taking advantage of every opportunity to develop the colonies to the mutual advantage of the member nations of the British Empire?

Mr. MacDONALD: The particulars for which my hon. Friend asks are contained, so far as relates to the period ending the 31st March, 1933, in the four Interim Reports of the Colonial Development Advisory Committee published as Command Papers under the following numbers:—Cmd. 3540; Cmd. 3876; Cmd. 4079 and Cmd. 4316. Particulars of later schemes will be included in the Fifth Interim Report, which will cover the period from the 1st April, 1933, to the 31st March, 1934. As regards loans from the fund, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on the 6th December last to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Sir I. Macpherson). The total amount to be contributed by the Colonial Development Fund in aid of schemes approved before the 31st March, 1933, is £3,054,508. The total estimated expenditure from all sources on the schemes so assisted is about £9,500,000. The reply to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: Does the hon. Gentleman intend to imply by those reports that they represent the limit of the possibilities of development within the Colonies?

Mr. MacDONALD: The reports merely refer to the schemes approved and make no comment otherwise than by implication. The latter part of my reply covers the supplementary question, which indicates that I am satisfied.

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: We maintain that there is a great deal of opportunity in the Colonies—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must ask a question.

The following is a list of the major new commitments. In the case of commitments involving legislation, the list includes those which were not covered by legislation in force on 4th May, 1933, and had not been announced to Parliament, either in proposals for legislation or otherwise, at that date. In the case of commitments not involving legislation, the list includes those which were not provided for in the Original Estimates for 1933:


I. SUPPLY SERVICES.


Vote.
New Commitment.


Class II, Vote 5
Dominion Services
(a) Bechuanaland.




A grant of £140,000 in aid of the revenue of the Protectorate was voted by the House on a Supplementary Estimate in June, 1933; a further sum of £37,000 will be required during the current financial year.




(b) Newfoundland.




(i) An advance of £400,000 to meet the interest on the external debt of Newfoundland during the current year was granted by the House on a Supplementary Estimate in June, 1933.




(ii) Further advances will be made under Section 2 of the Newfoundland Act, 1933, for the purpose of the administration of Newfoundland. The amount of the advances is at present under consideration.


Class II, Vote 7
Empire Marketing
A Supplementary Estimate will be presented to enable provision to be made for certain commitments of the Empire Marketing Fund after the 30th September, 1933.


Class II, Vote 12
India Office
Indian Defence Expenditure.—His Majesty's Government have decided to recommend the payment to the Indian Government of a grant of £1,500,000 a year (beginning with the year 1933) towards the cost of India's Defence expenditure.


Class IV, Vote 2
British Museum
Codex Sinaiticus.—His Majesty's Government have undertaken to make a special contribution of one pound for every pound subscribed by the public towards the purchase price of £100,000.


Class V, Votes 1 and 10.
Ministry of Health and Department of Health for Scotland.
Rural Water Supplies.—Proposals are before Parliament to authorise these departments to contribute out of Votes towards the provision or improvement of rural water supplies. The contributions will not exceed £1,000,000 in the case of the Ministry of Health and £137,500 in the case of the Department of Health for Scotland. No part of these sums will be spent during 1933.


Class V, Votes 1A and 13.
Grants to Local Authorities in Distressed Areas in England, Wales and Scotland.
Distressed Areas.—In July, 1933, the House voted amounts of £440,000 (England and Wales) and £60,000 (Scotland) as special grants during 1933 to local authorities in distressed areas.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

COMMITMENTS.

Mr. LAMBERT: 26.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amounts by way of loan or grant for which the Treasury bas been made responsible since the introduction of the Finance Bill, 1933?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will, with my right hon. Friend's permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the figures for which he asks.

Following are the figures:

Vote.
New Commitment.


Class V, Vote 8
Ministry of Labour
Unemployment Bill.—The Bill now before the House involves additional expenditure on certain items and savings on others, as set out in the Financial Memorandum attached to the Bill. No additional expenditure will be incurred under the Bill during 1933 and the cost in 1934 will depend on the dates at which the various provisions of the Bill come into force.


Class VI, Vote 8.
Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.
Bacon Marketing Board.—Supplementary Estimates will be presented to enable a loan of £160,000, repayable within two years, to be made to the Board under Section 2 of the Agricultural Marketing (No. 2) Act 1933.


Class VI, Vote 17



Department of Agriculture, Scotland.


Class VI, Vote 9
Beet Sugar Subsidy, Great Britain.
His Majesty's Government have announced their intention to introduce legislation to provide a subsidy on beet sugar for a further year from 1st October, 1934. The cost during the year 1934 is estimated at about £3,000,000.


Class VI, Vote 17
Department of Agriculture, Scotland.
Land Settlement.—Legislation is before the House to increase by £75,000 a year for three years the sums to be issued to the Agriculture (Scotland) Fund for the purpose of small holdings in Scotland.

II. OTHER SERVICES.

Road Fund.—Certain new commitments (to be met out of the Road Fund) were set out in the Revised Statement of the Estimated Commitments and Payments of the fund for 1933–34 issued in November, 1933 (Command Paper 4458). The Revised Statement indicated, however, that on balance there would be a reduction in the estimated cash payments from the fund during 1933–34.

Cunard Steamship Company.—The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the House on the 13th December, 1933, that in certain events the Government would introduce proposals for furnishing the necessary financial facilities for the completion of the new Cunard liner known as No. 534.

III. GUARANTEES.

Palestine.—On the 14th July, 1933, the Secretary of State for the Colonies announced that legislation would be introduced to guarantee the principal and interest of a loan of £2,000,000 to be raised by the Government of Palestine for the purpose of capital expenditure on the resettlement of Arabs, agricultural credits and certain public works.

Newfoundland.—Under Section 3 of the Newfoundland Act, 1933, the Treasury may guarantee stock issued by the Government of Newfoundland in exchange
for certain existing securities or to raise money for the repayment of other existing securities and for covering expenses incidental to these operations. The total amount of the new Stock thus to be guaranteed is expected (as stated in Command Paper 4481) to be between £17,000,000 and £17,500,000.

WAR DEBTS.

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: 28.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the details of the foreign debtors of the Government of Great Britain who have defaulted, or partially defaulted, since May, 1929; and if all Empire Governments have honoured their obligations?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I take it that my hon. Friend is referring to intergovernmental debts arising out of the War. No such default as suggested in the question has taken place in respect of debts due to the United Kindom, and payments were regularly received down to the 30th June, 1931. Thereafter the situation has been governed by the Hoover Moratorium and the Lausanne Agreements. The suspension of payments in respect of Reparations and War Debts agreed to at the Lausanne Conference remains in force, all the rights of His Majesty's Government under the existing Agreements being integrally re-
served, and certain relief and other post-War debts have also been suspended. A similar suspension of payments was offered to the Dominion Governments and the Government of India in respect of their War Debts. I am glad to take this opportunity of again expressing my appreciation of the fact that the Government of the Union of South Africa decided not to avail themselves of this offer, but have continued the payment of the instalments due up to the present date.

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: If the United States of America insist upon renewal of the payment of debt from this country, what prospects are there of our getting our debts from foreign countries?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is a hypothetical question.

EXCHANGE EQUALISATION ACCOUNT.

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: 29.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether His Majesty's Government is using the Exchange Equalisation Fund to create an artificial value of sterling abroad in order to return to the Gold Standard; and what steps are being taken to safeguard the taxpayers against loss arising out of the purchase of foreign exchange?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. The purpose of the Exchange Equalisation Account is to correct temporary fluctuations in the exchange value of sterling. It has not been used to create an artificial value for sterling for the purpose of returning to the Gold Standard or for any other purpose, and as there is a good deal of misunderstanding on this matter I should perhaps add that it would in my opinion be ineffective if so used. In reply to the last part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the discussions which took place during the passage of the Exchange Equalisation Account Bill and Finance Bill last year.

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: In view of the equalisation fund that has been created in America, is there any likelihood of competition between our Equalisation Fund and the equalisation fund of America?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: We had better wait and see what the operation of the fund in America is likely to be.

Mr. THORNE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the £350,000,000 is still in the Equalisation Fund.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: Is not the existence of the new American equalisation fund an added reason why the conversations between us and America should be expedited?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know to what conversations the hon. Gentleman refers.

Mr. GRENFELL: Regarding currency and regarding our mutual obligation; are there no conversations now in prospect?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, not that I know of.

REDISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION OF EMPIRE.

The following question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Brigadier-General Sir H. CROFT:

"31. To ask the Prime Minister whether he will grant a day for the discussion of the Motion standing in the name of the honourable and gallant Baronet the Member for Bournemouth, with reference to the redistribution of the population of the Empire."—
That this House is of the opinion that the time has arrived when active steps should be taken to consider schemes for the redistribution of the population of the Empire, and therefore urges the Government to consult with the Dominions and Colonies with a view to the promotion of organised Empire settlement.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Before I ask this question, I should like to say that it refers to a Motion which was on the Paper yesterday, but which has since been removed for technical reasons. Otherwise, several additional names would appear.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): As my hon. and gallant Friend is no doubt aware, an opportunity will occur to-morrow for a Debate on this subject on a Private Member's Motion, which is to be moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Park (Sir A. Shirley Benn).

Sir H. CROFT: After the reply of the Prime Minister, may I ask him if he is
aware that this Motion is supported by a very large majority of the back-benchers who support the Government, and actually by a majority now of the Members of the House of Commons, and, in view of the totally inadequate time of 3½ hours for a Private Members' Debate, would he consider giving an opportunity for ventilating the whole subject before the Easter holidays?

The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot go any further than I have gone in answer to this question at the moment.

Captain GUEST: May I ask if it is too late to reconsider the request of the hon. and gallant Baronet, in view of the fact that the Motion which stands in the name of the hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Sir A. Shirley Benn) for to-morrow covers a much wider subject than is included in the Motion of the hon. and gallant Baronet, which is supported, I believe, by more than 300 supporters of the Government and other Members of Parliament?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think that we had better wait until this Debate takes place to-morrow. The ground covered by both Motions has so much in common that the hon. and gallant Baronet will have to have his Motion removed before the other can be debated.

GERMANY (AEROPLANES).

Mr. JOHN WILMOT: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the number and type of aeroplanes bought by the German Government, trade firms, or other persons interested in aviation in Germany from manufacturers in this country during the past 12 months?

Dr. BURGIN: I am unable to furnish any information as to the number and type of aeroplanes bought from manufacturers in this country during the past 12 months, but the number of complete aeroplanes exported from the United Kingdom to Germany during the year 1933 was four.

Mr. WILMOT: Will the hon. Gentleman consider taking steps to get the necessary information with regard to the
export of both completed planes and parts of planes intended for military purposes?

MALTA.

Mr. T. SMITH (for Mr. T. WILLIAMS): 22.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any statement to make on the present position in Malta?

Mr. M. MacDONALD: No, Sir. In the absence of my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, I do not think that there is any general statement that I could usefully make. Reports from Malta do not indicate that there is anything in the situation there that calls for special comment.

AUSTRIA.

Mr. MANDER (by Private Notice): asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any statement to make with reference to the situation in Austria, and whether any information has been received from the Austrian Government with regard to a proposal to raise the question of the differences between Austria and Germany before the Council of the League of Nations.

Mr. EDEN: The Austrian Minister recently informed my right hon. Friend of representations made by the Austrian Government at Berlin, in which the possibility was mentioned of an eventual appeal by Austria to the League of Nations. So far as I know, no reply has yet been made by the German Government to these representations, and I cannot, therefore, make any further statement at the present time.

Mr. MANDER: Is the hon. Gentleman in a position to deny the rumour that the British Government are discouraging Austria from raising the matter before the Council of the League?

Mr. EDEN: Yes, Sir. I have heard that rumour, and am glad of this opportunity of saying that there is no truth in it whatever.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Does not the hon. Gentleman consider that it is of the
utmost importance that this matter should be raised as a means of bringing about peace?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter of opinion.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I desire to ask a question of the Leader of the House. In the course of yesterday's proceedings on the Unemployment Bill, several important Clauses were not discussed, and I desire to ask whether it would not be possible for the Leader of the House, in his capacity as such, to have the whole question of the proceedings on the Bill reopened. In view of the fact that no time was wasted yesterday, and that several important Clauses, affecting large numbers of working people, were left undiscussed, is it not possible, having regard to the future discussions on the Bill, to have the whole question of the Guillotine and the allocation of time reopened?

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): I had no knowledge that this question was going to be asked. The point that the hon. Member raises is one that invariably occurs when any Bill is taken under the Guillotine. The allocation of time is always made with very great care, it is debated in the House, and it has been decided by the House that the allocation shall be made. In practice, when matters of any importance escape discussion during the Committee stage, that is very often corrected by those particular matters being discussed on Report. Certainly I can hold out no hope at this moment that reconsideration would now be given to what was decided by the House.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Then I would like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the rights of the House, whether, seeing that matters which are of vital importance, and affect the interests of huge bodies of people, have not been discussed by the House, you have any rights in this matter of safeguarding the rights of the House of Commons?

Mr. SPEAKER: I take it that the hon. Member asks me that question on a point of Order. The matter is entirely out of
my hands. The House of Commons itself has decided by a majority that the time of the House should be allocated in a certain way. I have nothing to do with the way in which that time is expended.

Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: Is it the intention of the Leader of the House, in view of the large number of points that have not been discussed, and will not be discussed, on this Bill, to add to the time that will be available for the Report stage?

Mr. BALDWIN: No; one must certainly wait and see. I would remind the hon. Member, who has not been a Member of the House for very long, that these difficulties have occurred ever since the Guillotine was first employed as part of the procedure of Parliament. They have been unfortunately, an inseparable concomitant of the Guillotine. The alternative that was found in the old days, when the Guillotine was not employed, was that discussion would often be carried to such a length as would make it perfectly impossible, with the amount of business which this House now has to do, to get legislation through.

Mr. TINKER: In view of what happened yesterday, when no unnecessary time was taken up, could not the Government give us some reply on the question of extra time? It is very evident that the Bill has not been discussed as fully as it ought to be discussed, and the granting of more time is well worthy of consideration.

Mr. BALDWIN: I spent a great many years of my life sitting where the hon. Member is now sitting, and I quite understand his feelings. But, also, he has sat on this side of the House, and he knows that it would be perfectly impossible for the Leader of the House, after a Bill has been started, to commit himself in any way on such a question.

Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: Everyone who took part in the Debate realises that no time was wasted. We were only able to discuss two Clauses out of five. On Clauses 2, 4 and 5 there was no Debate at all. There is substance in the plea that is being made for reconsideration of the allocation of time.

Mr. BALDWIN: There is always substance in these claims, as the right hon.
Gentleman will remember when he had the good, or it may be the evil, fortune to sit on these benches. I take note of what has been said, but the Prime Minister is out of the House, and I cannot add anything at the moment to what I have said.

Sir MURDOCH McKENZIE WOOD: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the experience of yesterday shows that in such an allocation of time as we have under this Bill there might be more compartments so as to ensure that every Clause has an opportunity at some time of consideration?

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT BILL.

[2nd Allotted Day].

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 6.—(Amendments as to third statutory condition.)

3.30 p.m.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): I beg to move, in page 6, line 9, to leave out from the beginning to the end of line 14, and to insert:
(1) Sub-section (1) of Section four of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1930, shall have effect as if there were inserted therein after the words 'offered to him' the words 'or if it is proved by an officer of the Ministry of Labour that the claimant has neglected to avail himself of an opportunity of suitable employment'.
When this Bill was first printed, I invited representations and opinions not only from Members of all parties in the House but from people outside who were entitled to express the views of those who were likely to be affected, and the conclusion that I came to was that there was, and is, a doubt sincerely felt by large numbers of people that the words "unable to obtain employment" might be so construed as to mean in effect a reinsertion of the words "genuinely seeking work." Having had almost more experience than anyone in the House of what those words might mean, I am determined at all costs to avoid any doubt, and it is for the purpose of resolving those doubt that I propose this Amendment.
The reason that I speak with some feeling about these words "genuinely seeking work" is this: They were part of the Acts from 1921 onwards; in 1921 they applied to those on uncovenanted benefit. Cases of uncovenanted benefit were referred to committees which advised the Minister, and we had to give a final decision in many hundreds of cases as to whether this condition of "genuinely seeking work" was fulfilled. In order to satisfy the condition, a man had to go from colliery to colliery and from factory to factory where there might be no earthly chance of obtaining employment, and there was case after case where a man, perhaps, went and badgered the foreman
of some works or factory which all the time had displayed outside a notice that no labour would be engaged except at the Employment Exchange. That experience satisfied me, and I have been convinced, that those words "genuinely seeking work" are not proper words for an Act of this kind. In 1924 for the first time they were applied also to standard benefit, and in 1927 they were re-enacted. The trouble arose in the construction of the words "genuinely seeking work." It did not arise upon the words "unable to obtain employment."
I am satisfied, as the result of representations from many quarters inside and outside the House, that the fear is real and sincere that, when it comes to construction by the court of referees or by the umpire, it might conceivably be said that "unable to obtain employment" was in effect the same thing as "genuinely seeking work." Let me, by reference to the Royal Commission, state why the words "unable to obtain employment" were inserted in the first instance. The Royal Commission, in paragraph 439, relating to the condition "unable to obtain suitable employment," said:
If that condition were restored, and if it were administered in the way in which it was administered when it formed part of the Third Statutory Condition, the effect would be that a claimant would not lose his benefit unless the Court were satisfied that he knew that there was a possibility of getting work and he did not take reasonable steps to get it. It has been suggested that such a condition might be so construed as in effect to require the claimant to prove that he was genuinely seeking work. We do not think that such a construction would be right.
Therefore, the view of the majority was, that, although there was a possibility of these words being so construed, it was so remote that it might safely be disregarded. The minority came to very much the same conclusion. The minority state, in paragraph 73, on page 411:
We have stated that benefit should be continued so long as a claimant is without work, able to work, and unable to get work. We do not think that with proper safeguards as to interpretation there is any reason why the condition which existed in the 1911 Act 'unable to obtain suitable employment' should not be reinstated.
At the bottom of the same page, in paragraph 74, it says:
It must be made clear that the only other occasion on which a claimant might
fail to satisfy this condition would be if it were proved that he knew that suitable employment was available and he made no reasonable efforts to obtain it. The condition would thus only apply in cases where a claimant had shown by his acts that he preferred benefit to work.
It will be seen that there was a gap which both the majority and the minority thought ought to be closed. The case, of course, was that of a man who knew that work was available and did not apply for it. There is common ground with regard to that matter. The Amendment strikes out from the Bill Sub-section 1 of Clause 6, and inserts, in Section 4 of the Act of 1930, the words of the Amendment which I have moved. As very few hon. Members will have a copy of the Act of 1930 before them, perhaps the Committee will forgive me if I read from it. Section 4 of that Act reads as follows:
If on a claim for benefit it is proved by an officer of the Ministry of Labour that the claimant, after a situation in any employment which is suitable in his case has been notified to him by an Employment Exchange or other recognised agency, or by or on behalf of an employer as vacant or about to become vacant, has without good cause refused or failed to apply for such situation, or refused to accept such situation when offered to him.
At that point, after those words, I propose to close the gap to which I have referred by inserting the words in the Amendment, which reads that this Section shall have effect
as if there were inserted therein after the words offered to him,' the words 'or if it is proved by an officer of the Ministry of Labour that the claimant has neglected to avail himself of an opportunity of suitable employment,
I do not think that I need read the rest. From what I have said, I have made it clear that, on the one hand, I have closed the gap to which both reports of the Royal Commission have referred, and at the same time I have made it abundantly clear that there is no question now of the restoration of words equivalent to "genuinely seeking work." I have put the onus of proof upon the officer of the Ministry in this matter in the same way as the onus is upon him in regard to the other cases referred to in this Section. When I introduced the Bill on Second Reading I said in all good faith that I was prepared to welcome constructive suggestions to make the Act
as good an Act as it could possibly be, and I believe that this suggestion, coming as it does, not from one quarter but from many quarters, goes the whole way to meet a position of which I ought to take notice. I explained why the words were originally put into the Bill, and I have explained the reasons which have induced me to take them out and to insert other words. I claim that I have, in this matter at any rate, fulfilled the promise to give full and fair consideration to any suggestions from whatever quarter they come if I believed such suggestions tended towards making the Bill a better Measure.

Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: This is a very difficult matter to discuss, because we have only just had the Amendment put into our hands.

Sir H. BETTERTON: It has only just been drafted.

Mr. BEVAN: It is very difficult to visualise its full effect. I should like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman the administrative reasons which have led him to change the wording of the 1930 Act at all. He has mentioned the minority and majority reports of the Royal Commission, but what experience in the Ministry of Labour and at the exchanges has led him to desire any alteration at all? We have not heard. I have not heard from any official at the exchanges any effective criticism of the existing procedure.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has put his point on procedure and has asked the Minister for further information, and I do not think that he ought to make a speech at this point on the Amendment.

Sir H. BETTERTON: It is a perfectly fair question, but obviously one which I cannot adequately answer across the Table at this stage. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that the answer is to be found in the evidence which was tendered to the Royal Commission and upon which both the majority and the minority made their report. I think that it would be agreed that I would incur a very serious responsibility if, having had this report before me, I had done nothing to meet the case, which I have endeavoured to meet in a way which I hope the Committee will approve.

Mr. LOGAN: rose—

The CHAIRMAN: I want to keep the Debate in order, so as to prevent difficulties arising. My proper duty now is to put the Question, and the Question in the form in which I should naturally put it would be, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause." I assume that that will be negatived and that Sub-section (1) will be omitted. I want to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that if that be done it will necessarily destroy the next two or three Amendments on the Order Paper. Hon. Members whose names are down to those Amendments perhaps may not wish to move them, but I realise that hon. Members who each have Amendments down may wish to raise some similar point on the inserted words on the assumption that Sub-section (1) is to be cut out and other words put in place of it. Therefore, I think I ought to remind the Committee that if they wish thus to deal with matters raised by those Amendments their only way to do so will be by Amendments to the Minister's proposed Amendment. We might to-day, for the convenience of the Committee, do what we have done on other occasions. If the Opposition care to do so, we might take the Minister's Amendment in two parts: First of all, strike out Sub-section (1) and then deal with the Question of the words being inserted in place of it.

Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: Before I say anything about the substance—

The CHAIRMAN: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I thought he was rising to refer to the remarks which I have made. I have not put the Question. If the Committee raise no objection, I propose to put the Question in two parts, first "That the words proposed to be left out"—that is, from the beginning of Sub-section (1) to the end of line 14—"stand part of the Clause." I am assuming that the Committee will negative those words without discussion, and that will enable me to put the Question, "That those words be there inserted."

Mr. MAXTON: I am not clear on the matter. You said that you would put the Question that the words of Sub-section (1) stand part, and you assumed that that Question would be accepted.

The CHAIRMAN: No. I assumed that that would be negatived and that the words would be struck out.

Mr. MAXTON: Oh, I see.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

3.54 p.m.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I think the Government have put the Committee in a very serious difficulty this afternoon, and my first words must be formally to protest. I have already protested personally to the Minister in stronger terms than I can do in Committee at this sudden descent upon the Committee of a first-class Amendment, when only two or three of us knew of the substance of it a few minutes before the Debate began. The Minister had a very extended vacation during Christmas, when he might have brought his mind to bear upon the problem. Having, presumably, frittered away that opportunity, he appeared in Committee yesterday and carried through five Clauses under the Guillotine, and there was no indication up to 11.34 p.m. that he had it in his mind to bring before the Committee to-day a substantial Amendment of this kind. I should like to offer my sympathy to you, Sir Dennis, in the difficulty in which you have been placed owing to this eleventh hour repentance on the part of the right hon. Gentleman.
The right hon. Gentleman has gone some considerable way towards meeting the case which my hon. Friends and I have put up in the House, but how far he has gone it is very difficult to tell, because very few hon. Members have the Act of 1930 in front of them or the report of the Royal Commission. We have never believed that there was any need whatever for changing Section 4 of the Act of 1930, but now, after all this time, 18 months after the publication of the Royal Commission's report, yet when the Bill has been before the House for weeks, and on the second day of the discussion in Committee under the Guillotine, the right hon. Gentleman suddenly feels that there is something which must be changed in Clause 4 of the Act of 1930, which has been so strongly repudiated by hon. Members opposite, but which, so far as
I recollect, has never been repudiated on any occasion by the right hon. Gentleman or the Parliamentary Secretary. We have never understood why they want to change it. We cannot understand why it has taken the right hon. Gentleman so long to make up his mind to change it, and, having made up his mind to change it, we cannot understand why he has said what he has said.
It is difficult to argue on the right hon. Gentleman's words in detail, because they are new to the Committee. Section 4 of the Act of 1930 has by general admission worked pretty well, and there is no reason for changing it, but the Minister, after mature reflection, has gone back on the words in the Section and wishes to insert other words. What is not clear to those of us who have had a minute or two in which to glance at the proposal, is the reason why the proposed words are to be inserted. The right hon. Gentleman quoted from the minority and majority reports, but it does not seem to us that Section 4 needs any alteration. It is made perfectly clear in the early part of the Section that if a man has refused an offer of a situation and put himself out of suitable employment, he is disqualified for benefit. Let me read the words of Section 4:
If on a claim for benefit it is proved by an officer of the Ministry of Labour that the claimant, after a situation in any employment which is suitable in his case has been notified to him by an Employment Exchange or other recognised agency, or by or on behalf of an employer as vacant or about to become vacant, has without good cause refused or failed to apply for such situation, or refused to accept such situation when offered to him—
That seems pretty well to cover the situation. The Section then goes on to say:
or if it is proved by an officer of the Ministry of Labour that a claimant has without good cause refused or failed to carry out any written directions given to him by an officer of an Employment Exchange with a view to assisting him to find suitable employment (being directions which were reasonable having regard both to the circumstances of the claimant and to the means of obtaining that employment usually adopted in the district in which the claimant resides) he shall be disqualified for receiving benefit for a period of six weeks or for such shorter period and from such date as may be determined by the court of referees or the umpire, as the case may be.
It appears to me that those provisions completely fill the need. But in the
middle of the words which I have read these further words are to be inserted:
Or if it is proved by an officer of the Ministry of Labour that the claimant has neglected to avail himself of the opportunity of suitable employment.
It is true that the words there proposed
Or if it is proved by an officer of the Ministry of Labour
put the onus of proof upon the Department and not upon the man, but those are not the words to which I draw special attention. I want to know exactly what is implied in the words
that the applicant has neglected to avail himself of an opportunity of suitable employment.
The provisions in Clause 4 of the 1930 Act seem to me to be sufficiently explicit. "An opportunity." What kind of opportunity? Any opportunity? Is an opportunity an opportunity when it is unknown to the man who is out of work? If there is a job vacant 10 miles away in another town, it may be an opportunity, but if it is outside the knowledge of the unemployed man, is that to be regarded as an opportunity? Is not an opportunity one which can reasonably, somehow, be brought to his notice, or which has been brought to his notice, by the Employment Exchange? This seems to me to be a form of words which may be the cloven hoof, and while on this side of the Committee we welcome this partial salvation of the sinner, not complete as yet, while we should welcome the re-establishment of Clause 41 of the 1930 Act, I do not feel that I ought to commit my hon. Friends on this side to the additional words which the right hon. Gentleman has inserted. I hope that one of my hon. Friends will move an Amendment to leave out these words, but if we are defeated on this, I must say that if, after reflection, we are as suspicious as we are at the moment, we shall feel it necessary to raise the question on the Report stage.

4.3 p.m.

Mr. A. BEVAN: In the first place, I should like to associate myself with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) has said in protest against this manuscript Amendment. The Government have been preparing this Bill for two years. Do I understand that the Minister allowed these words to remain in the Bill in
order to be able to make a concession in the course of the Committee stage, so as to be able to satisfy the Committee that he was in a reasonable state of mind, and that, after the experience of last evening, he thinks that the time has arrived to make a concession to the Committee? Obviously the Minister must have been aware of what the existing words in the Bill would have done. He has had long enough to study them, and I really must protest against this habit of inserting Clauses in the Bill in order to be able to take them out at a diplomatic time in the Committee. I would ask hon. Members to realise that if the Minister includes things in the Bill in this way so as to be able later to satisfy the Members of the Committee, then at once the Guillotine ought to be abolished, because there may be a lot of things in the other Clauses which we shall never reach—things with which he himself does not agree, but on which we shall not be able to force him to make Amendments because we shall not be able to debate the Clauses. I want to protest against that abuse of the House of Commons.
It is frightfully difficult in this business to understand what the full effect of these words will be. If hon. Members will cast their minds back over the history of this part of the Unemployment Insurance legislation, they will realise that the Ministry of Labour administratively has always violated the expressed intention of the House of Commons. That has been the difficulty over these words. I do not believe that there are Members in any part of the House who desire to see the not-genuinely-seeking work condition applied in the way it was in the Exchanges. In the last Parliament we had a very important Debate on this principle, and it was expressed in all parts of the House that it was absolutely undesirable that an unemployed man should be driven to look for work which he knew was not there, and that there should be organised lying at the rota committees in order to satisfy the officers of the Exchanges that men had actually been running about looking for work, when everybody knew it was a fiction. No one desires that state of affairs to arise, but it arose because Parliament incorporated in this legislation a form of words which made the test for work subjective, and not objective. It put the
onus of proof upon the applicant for benefit, and not upon the Employment Exchange, and once the onus of proof is shifted from the Exchange to the applicant, immediately all the difficulties of not-genuinely-seeking work can arise.
If the right hon. Gentleman will recollect, the Attorney-General in the last Parliament attempted to incorporate in the Bill words bearing some such interpretation as the Minister now suggests, and we rejected them. We insisted upon the inclusion of the existing language, because we wanted to make it clear, above peradventure, that the onus of proof must always rest upon the Exchange itself, and never upon the applicant, because if it rests upon the applicant, the test becomes subjective, and it does not exist in the presence of an actual offer of employment. I have had some experience of the administration of rota committees, and I know what happened. By this Amendment you are quite unnecessarily adding another test. There are tests already in the Bill perfectly adequate, and there is one situation that makes it unnecessary for the Minister to put in these words. It is that in almost every part of the country there are more men available for jobs than there are jobs available for men. That fact itself protects the Chancellor of the Exchequer from having to carry an additional burden if men will not seek out jobs that are there, because if one man does not get the job another man gets it, and the same burden will rest upon the Exchequer and the fund.

Mr. GLUCKSTEIN: Not necessarily. One man may be married, the other single.

Mr. BEVAN: There would, of course, be differences of that kind, but it might happen that you would drive a single man into a job and keep out a married man, and that would cost more. We cannot discuss differences of that sort; we have the actual protection as long as more men are idle than there are jobs available, and it is unnecessary cruelty to insist on the mass of the unemployed searching eagerly out for any opportunity of employment. They have not the means of increasing the amount of employment available, and, as long as they have not got that, this sort of legislation is unnecessary. I grant that this
legislation would be necessary if ever the situation arose in which employers were searching around for would-be employés and employés were hiding from them while the State was keeping them on the fund, but until that state of affairs arises, the necessity for this type of legislation does not arise. Coming to the actual words of the Amendment:
if it is proved by an officer of the Ministry of Labour that the claimant has neglected to avail himself of an opportunity of suitable employment.
If hon. Members will look at those words, they will see that it is the actual administration, and what has happened before, that we must keep in our minds, and not these words. What will happen at the Employment Exchange? The officer must shift the onus of proof on to the applicant. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!" and "Yes"!] Let us see. In the first place, the obligation to find out whether there are available jobs rests upon the applicant under these words. An officer of the exchange must, therefore, interview the man at the exchange to find out whether he has looked for jobs that it was within his knowledge he could obtain, so that he must shift the onus of proof at once on to the applicant, and say to the applicant, "So many jobs were available in that factory yesterday. Did you look for work?" "So many jobs were available at that colliery last week. Did you go?" He must say to a shop assistant, a girl, "This stores advertised a position the week before last. Did you apply?" In other words, the officer, in order to discharge his duty, must make a list of the jobs which were available in that locality, and must present it to each applicant for benefit to secure information as to whether they did, in fact, look for work.

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: Does not the officer have to prove that there were opportunities for work?

Mr. BEVAN: I said so. In every city, town and village in this country every day some job arises. I am not striving to make a party point; I am trying to say what would be the administrative consequence of this, and I am also assuming—I think I am right in assuming—that in all parts of the House no one desires to see men unnecessarily tor-
mented, and I really am apprehensive that this conceivably might give rise to some such danger, to which it is unnecessary for us to expose ourselves.

Mr. MOLSON: I am not quite clear about this point. Is it this? Suppose a pit was taking on an extra 100 men, and those extra 100 men were taken on, and the Employment Exchange proved that the other men knew of that opportunity, and did not avail themselves of it, does the hon. Gentleman pretend that when it is known that they were not seeking to obtain that work, they ought to go on receiving benefit?

Mr. BEVAN: I was trying to deal with that point. If there are jobs going in every city, town and village, those jobs always represent a very insignificant number for all the men out of work. Those jobs, presumably, must be known to every applicant for benefit. It assumes here that he has
neglected to avail himself of an opportunity of suitable employment.

Captain MOSS: If he does not know about it, it cannot be an opportunity.

Mr. BEVAN: If hon. Members believe that these words mean that, then why do not they insert words to make it quite clear, or why do they have this in at all? The existing legislation meets every contingency. The officer will catechise applicants for benefit with a copy of all the jobs going in front of him; the applicants will know that they are going to be asked these questions, and you at once get the treadmill of search starting all over again in order that they may be armed with the right response to the officer. That is precisely what will happen. That is how the obligation will shift back on to the unemployed man. Seven jobs were advertised by an urban council in my constituency and over 600 men applied for them. Three men are required at a colliery, and there are 6,000 men at the exchange, but not one of the 6,000 knows that he may be one of the three to get a job. Therefore, the officer will be entitled, under these words, to insist that all the 6,000 men should try to get one of these three jobs. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Hon. Members are talking without the book. If I was an applicant for benefit imagine the conversation which would occur. The officer
would say, "Did you look for one of these jobs?" I should say "No."

Mr. CAPORN: That is not the question.

Mr. BEVAN: The words of the Amendment are:
Has neglected to avail himself of an opportunity of suitable employment.
One of these three jobs was an opportunity for suitable employment—

Mr. CAPORN: Not if he did not know of it.

Mr. BEVAN: I am assuming all the time that he knew of it. There are 6,000 men at the exchange, and all who did not apply for one of these three jobs can be deprived of benefit under these proposed words. If the men know that they are going to be asked to satisfy that test, then the 6,000 men will troop to the colliery and ask for any job that might be given.

Mr. DAVID MASON: Three jobs cannot be an opportunity for employment for 6,000 men.

Mr. BEVAN: Hon. Members really are displaying the most appalling ignorance of unemployment administration. I submit that at the time these jobs are available and that anyone of the 6,000 men might have them, therefore, they are available to them at that time, and all the 6,000 men must apply for them because it is not known who are the three to be employed. The officer, therefore, is entitled to ask all the men whether they have applied for the jobs.

Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: The officer of the exchange will send three men.

Mr. BEVAN: In that case this Amendment is unnecessary. That is, indeed, the existing situation and under it justice is done, because if an individual refuses to go to a job which is offered him he has definitely refused a particular job which he could have had. Under these words he is turned down for a job which he could not have had.

Mr. MARTIN: I think the hon. Member is right, he is on a sound point, but would he not be satisfied if words were added to the proposal to imply that any particular job should be notified in the
exchange, provided that the men were suitable? That would not be so objectionable.

Mr. BEVAN: What is objectionable is this. You put up a notice that John Jones requires three labourers. There are 3,000 men signing on at the exchange, and unless three men are sent, then 3,000 men must go to John Jones and apply for the three jobs.

Mr. CAPORN: That is not the case, and if the hon. Member will allow me I will tell him why.

Mr. BEVAN: I shall be delighted to hear the answer later on. I want the Committee to realise that all reasonable requirements of the State are satisfied under the existing law. Therefore, why expose yourselves to these dangers? Hon. Members who represent constituencies with more settled conditions will be very sorry later on if they accept this proposal. The best thing is to run no risks with ambiguous language of this kind, cut it out, and tell the Minister of Labour that he has under existing regulations all that he requires. We do not want to start this trouble all over again. Once the men know that they are to be liable to cross-examination by an officer of the exchange—and the officer will have to hold a cross-examination if he is to do his duty—the fear of that cross-examination will drive them into all sorts of futile searches for work around all the factory and mine gates in the districts. That is an uncivilised and brutal way of bringing employment within the reach of the unemployed. The right way is to send a particular man to a particular job, and to refuse him benefit if he refuses a particular job. Any subjective test with over 2,500,000 men idle will create endless trouble, will scare employers, because they will be asked to write endless notes, and I hope that hon. Members will consider the matter earnestly and ask themselves whether it is necessary to run these dangers. I hope the Minister will see his way to withdraw the Amendment.

4.23 p.m.

Mr. CURRY: The repeated interruptions which the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) has had to undergo shows the danger of the methods adopted by His Majesty's Government. The Bill is very complicated and all those who are
interested have spent hours and days upon a study of it and have tabled Amendments only after very careful consideration. It is therefore regrettable that the Minister of Labour has delayed so long in bringing forward this manuscript Amendment. It is between six and eight weeks since the Second Reading of the Bill when some of us, so far as this Clause is concerned, put forward exactly the arguments which the Minister has pointed out to-day, and the Amendment which we have tabled was put down in no spirit of party criticism but because our experience led us to be apprehensive of the very real dangers we were running in reviving what we said was the genuinely-seeking-work Clause. The supporters of the Bill told us on the Second Reading that that was not the case, and I believe, on the general case, it is held that there is no danger of a return to the genuinely-seeking-work Clause by accepting this Measure.
To-day the Minister of Labour has laid great emphasis on finding suitable work, but he did not mention the word which frightens many of us, the word "proof." We are apprehensive about the onus of proof being thrown upon the applicant. The purpose of the Amendment, as I take it, is to take that onus off the applicant and put it on to the Minister, through the proper officials. If that is so, we welcome it as a great step forward, but at the same time we regret that it has been brought forward in this way. I think it is unfair to ask the Committee to accept the responsibility for these words at a glance. So far as my friends and I are concerned we are glad that the Amendment has been moved, because the words which we fear most have been eliminated, but at the same time we hope that the Government will not prevent us having second thoughts about it. We do not desire our opposition to resolve itself into carping criticism or into something like a vain search for the Loch Ness monster, but, having regard to the importance of the matter, we do not wish to commit ourselves to the acceptance of these words to-day without further opportunity of giving them careful consideration. The Amendment to which my name stands will not now be moved because we have gained our point. With these reservations, I welcome the action taken by the Government this afternoon.

4.29 p.m.

Major HILLS: I want to put before the Minister a difficulty which presents itself to some hon. Members. There is no doubt that the genuinely-seeking-work Clause is a matter which excites the greatest interest. When the Bill was brought before us we found a short Sub-section put in to meet that point. That we considered for some time. At the same time we saw that a very long Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act of 1930 was repealed. On that we could make up our minds, for we had something upon which to decide. Now we have the whole of that long Sub-section reinstated, and put into the middle of it are two or three lines. I do not know what other hon. Members think, but I feel that I am quite incompetent to decide the question now. I cannot do it. We have considered the Government Sub-section, and that I am prepared to support, but now I am asked to give my mind to the effect of an alteration of a very long and complicated Sub-section of a previous Act. I respectfully say that it is rather hard that the Amendment should not even have been handed in last night. Had it been handed in then we could have spent this morning puzzling it out. Our brains are not as quick as those of Ministers, and we want all the assistance that we can get. We are put in a very difficult position. I admit that the Minister made one of his reasonable speeches, but we have to decide this matter for ourselves. I wonder whether the Minister could find some way of giving us rather more time to consider the proposal? It is a very difficult and a very important matter, and if it could be adjourned to the Report stage, or if some subsequent opportunity could be given, the Minister would do no harm to the prospects of his Bill and would give great help to his perplexed supporters.

4.35 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I agree that the words we are debating are of very great importance. Reference has been made to the annoyance caused by the Minister handing in a manuscript Amendment. I confess that I do not much care about joining in a heresy hunt on that score. I am more concerned that the Minister, if he seeks to improve a Clause, ought to try to amend it, even if it means handing in a manuscript Amendment. I would
sooner have a manuscript Amendment moved to improve the Bill than that the Minister should stand on his dignity because he is afraid to put in a manuscript Amendment. All Governments have done this sort of thing during the Committee stage. The last Labour Government did it on the "not genuinely seeking work" Clause. They did not even have their Amendment typed and handed to us. They bandied about words of which we knew nothing. They discussed them behind the Speaker's Chair, and then returned to the House, and we did not know what they were. If it were possible I would, of course, much prefer that Amendments should be on the Order Paper, but I want to make it clear that if an Amendment is moved to improve a Bill, whether the Minister is driven to it by numbers or by advice or in any way at all, I would much sooner the Amendment was made by any method that the Minister chose than that the Minister should have to defend himself against introducing Amendments in manuscript form.
Another thing to be recognised is that the Minister is on strong ground here. He is going further than the Majority and Minority Report asked him to go. That should be remembered. I hope that the Labour party will forgive me for mentioning these things: First this Commission was their Commission, appointed without the vote of this House. It was appointed deliberately by them and supported by them in private party meetings. Not only was the Commission appointed by them, but the terms of reference were chosen by them. The most damning thing of all is that evidence was sent to that Commission by the Ministry of Labour, then controlled by Miss Margaret Bondfield. The minority agreed to the words as passed in the Act. Both Miss Rackham and Mr. Astbury agreed.
Two or three considerations have to be taken into account in addition to the words. There are certain important factors which should be borne in mind by those who were not in the House at the time. First of all when "not genuinely seeking work" was abolished by the Labour Government it affected a far larger number of people than is now the case. "Not genuinely seeking work," even if it was reimposed to-day, would
not apply to anything like the number to which it formerly applied. The late Labour Government disqualified some under the Anomalies Act, and the means test has cut out large numbers of people to whom "not genuinely seeking work" would not apply. Benefit as a right from 30 stamps for, roughly speaking, a year and four months, has gone, and benefit is now a maximum of six months. These facts should be borne in mind.
There is another important aspect here. To-day we are not discussing merely "not genuinely seeking work." If a man commits this offence for the second time in 12 months he is now liable to a disqualification from benefit for six months. When hon. Members consider these words, and the liability of a man they should remember what they are doing. If a man cannot carry out this instruction his second offence in a year means that for six months he is to get no benefit; he can be disqualified for six months. When hon. Members put a penalty of six months on a man it is necessary to exercise far greater care than ever before. I hope I am not out of order in mentioning this, but the Minister would not impose such a penalty without very great concern. It has been suggested by one speaker that words should be added to the Minister's Amendment. We have taken the precaution of handing in an Amendment to the Minister's Amendment. We wish to have added the words "defiitely offered to him." That means work definitely offered.

Mr. A. BEVAN: Does the hon. Member's proposal mean the addition to the Amendment of the words "definitely offered to him"?

Mr. BUCHANAN: Yes, "definitely offered to him."

The CHAIRMAN: I have not the least objection to the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) referring to his Amendment, but I would point out that he must not yet discuss his Amendment.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I agree that in the main they may be, but my point is this: It is not first of all the court of referees to which the applicant goes. He is first of all interviewed and examined by an insurance officer. He is asked: "Why are you unable to get a job? Why have you not gone and got a job?" The man replies: "I have not gone because I did
not know." But the officer says: "You are a pattern maker and you did not go. There is a pattern maker who has started and he is in the same branch of the union as you. Why did you not know of this job in the same way as he knew? Why is it that he knew and you did not know?" Of course the man finds difficulty in answering. It comes to this, that when a man is examined it is not an examination on facts at all but an examination on how the man looks, on how he appears to the officer at the time of the examination. A disqualification is to him a punishment of the most severe kind. It is a fine. Only facts should be examined by the insurance officer. You have no right to try a man on his appearance. Even under the Minister's Amendment the man will be examined by the officer. Supposing, as in the instance which I have just cited, pattern makers have been started at a certain place. I will reduce the dimensions of the case which I gave. Supposing there are two men in the same branch of a union living, if you like, in the same street, and one man gets a job and the other does not—

Mr. MARTIN: Surely, in that case, the words which the hon. Member proposes to insert should not be "definitely offered work," but "definitely notified of work."

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not discuss the merits of the Amendment suggested by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). That is not under discussion now.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I will not quarrel about the words. My point is that there are two men, and the one gets a job and the other does not. What is the insurance officer to prove in that case? That is my point. In a criminal case there is always an indictment framed. In the Scottish courts the prosecution have to frame an indictment and they are called upon to prove it. Bear in mind that in this case a man is being tried for an alleged offence. But there is no plan of an indictment in this Amendment. As the law now stands, the indictment is that the man has refused to carry out certain written instructions. When a man goes to the court of referees he meets that indictment and it is something which he can meet. But in this case, even with the proposed change, he has no indict-
ment to meet. The officer has to prove that the man is unable to get a job, but the man who is being tried for the offence has no indictment to meet. Do not put the unemployed man in a worse position than the criminal. At least treat him the same as you treat the criminal. There is no lawyer in this Committee who would allow such a proposal as this to go through, in reference to a criminal who had to be tried by the courts. Why should we allow it to go through in the case of the unemployed man? Why should we make it worse for him?
The Minister says two things. He says first that it is not his intention to do this and the words appear to be harmless. But when the condition about "not genuinely seeking work" went through the House of Commons the late Dr. Macnamara the Minister and everybody said that the intention was only to punish those who were not genuine. What could be fairer or more equitable? In fact, the words "not genuinely" were good words. But they lacked this feature. There was no indictment in them. There was no charge; they were words capable of any kind of construction. My submission is that anything that does not give the unemployed man a proper indictment and charge to meet is no use. My plea to the Minister is, that we should meet the unemployed man on decent terms. Do not forget that the insurance officer has a tremendous advantage. He is doing this job every day in the week. The man only appears there once in a year. It is easy for the trained man to prove his case, but it is a terrible thing for the man who is only there as a fleeting visitor to prove anything. Bear that factor in mind.
These words may be some improvement on the words that the Minister has in the Bill, but this Committee ought to insist that whatever the unemployed man is to be punished for, should be a definite thing with which he is definitely charged. In other cases he may be charged definitely with misconduct for instance, but the misconduct must be made out and we must be shown what it means. Under other conditions, a man may be charged with a definite offence or it may be alleged that he is incapable of doing work, but in this case no charge is framed. It was stated in answer to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) that this was being done because
of the Commission's recommendations, and because of the evidence given before the Commission. I have been through that evidence and apart from the evidence of one or two officials—and most of it had nothing at all to do with the applicants who will come under this Clause—there was no weight of evidence to show that great abuses existed at all. No man in this Committee who represents an industrial constituency and who visits the local exchanges regularly and interviews the managers, can say that there is one-hundredth part of the abuses which have been suggested. How many men are there to-day refusing jobs—even half-decent jobs. I do not know what is the experience of other hon. Members but my quarrel is not with the men for refusing the jobs. It is with the men for the kind of jobs which they take. I know a man of 24 years of age who started the other day as a chimney sweep at 20s. a week. My quarrel with them is on account of the jobs they take and not on account of the jobs they refuse.
This is all for the sake of getting a few odd men here and there. I could have stood it if there were only one per cent. of unemployment and if when a man refused the job he became a burden, but at its worst what does it mean to-day? If a man refuses a job, it only means that somebody else gets it and there is no change. It is not as though there was any fresh burden involved. By this Amendment the Committee will be taking the risk of disqualifying a huge number of people in order to get a phantom few of so-called offenders. I trust that the Committee will reject the Clause as it stands in the Bill and will revert to the original wording under which every reasonable safeguard is taken and of which neither the country nor the unemployed need be ashamed.

4.55 p.m.

Sir LUKE THOMPSON: I should like to add my quota to the discussion of this Clause which is, possibly, one of the most important parts of the Bill now under consideration. While I sympathise with those who have just seen the manuscript Amendment—as we have all just seen it—and who may have some difficulty in appreciating its terms, I would like to say to the Minister that I recognise the courage with which he has met this question. He has studied it carefully and,
evidently, after many representations he has been convinced that this Clause which was put down with a sincere desire to carry out the representations of the Commission was not likely to achieve its object, and he has therefore submitted his Amendment.
May I try to explain the position as I see it? It is quite easy to skim off from the difficulties, as the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has been doing, by referring to what has been done in the past. In the interpretation of this Clause there is a degree of uncertainty, but let us look at things as they are. Under the present Bill we are dealing with a different position regarding unemployment insurance, from any with which we have had to deal in the past. To-day you have a clear demarcation as between insurance and assistance. For the first time you are wiping away the test for transitional payments. There will be no statutory test when this Bill goes through for transitional payments and, while we are speaking of men who may be turned down under this Clause, we must remember that it will be possible for such a man to go through under the other part of the Measure, and to be better off, if he can prove a certain degree of need. That possibility exists. Under Sub-section (6) of Clause 3 we have laid down that if the first Statutory Condition is complied with, and if a man has 30 stamps available he can then draw benefit for 156 days. The only other test was the condition as to being capable of and available for work but unable to obtain suitable employment.
Is it possible to think, under all the conditions, that a man might go on for 156 days without ever attempting to get work? The Royal Commission saw that point, and the Royal Commission defined the position, and it was to meet that position that Clause 6 was put down. I think most Members had some doubt in regard to the fact that the onus of proof was being placed on the applicant instead of as it had been in the previous Act. The provision in the first part of Clause 6, Sub-section (1), as to proof that a man was capable of and available for work was a simple matter and I did not raise any quibble about it. The very fact that a man applied for benefit might be taken as showing that he was capable
of and available for work. The truth is that if you had placed the onus on him under capability, it meant that he would have had to be able to supply possibly, in the case of sickness, a medical certificate to the insurance officer instead of, as at present, a certificate of discharge saying he was capable of work.
These were difficulties and I could not see my way through them quite, but when I came to the latter part of this paragraph, "unable to obtain suitable employment," I felt like the Minister that the interpretation of it as it stood at present would imply an interrogation and that it would mean that the applicant must be examined from time to time. I am thankful to the Minister that under his Amendment, whether we think the words are absolutely correct and adequate or not, he has shifted the responsibility and the onus from the insured person on to the officer of the Ministry, and in so doing he has made a very great gain and security. After all, what can be the exception to the words? All that you have added is that the onus of proof is put upon the officer. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is the need for it"?] There is a need for it, considering that we are discussing the permanent stability of the Insurance Act. The whole question is whether this is a reasonable Amendment. Is it reasonable to apply it as a test to a man who needs benefit?

Mr. COVE: Is not the onus of proof now on the man?

Sir L. THOMPSON: No.

Mr. A. BEVAN: The onus of proof is on the officer to show that a man has not sought suitable employment.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Captain Margesson): Order!

Mr. BEVAN: I object to the interjection of the Patronage Secretary. He is not here all the time, and he does not know what has been said.

The CHAIRMAN: Order. I think it would be better if hon. Members would leave these matters in the hands of the Chair. I was attempting to assist the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) who was entitled to make his interruption when the hon. Member for
Sunderland (Sir L. Thompson) gave way.

Sir L. THOMPSON: I have not the least objection to the interruption. I personally have been through all the Insurance Acts since 1922, and I remember the 1924 Act, when the very best that the Labour Government could then do was embodied in the "not genuinely seeking" clause, which proved such a great heartbreak and disaster to the working men. We do not want to repeat that, and I am convinced that the only way to prevent it is to put the onus of proof, not on the man, but on the officer, which this Amendment does. I have not yet heard a single argument advanced by the Opposition that the onus of proof will come back on to the man himself. I am sure the Minister will listen attentively to all that is said, and, as I understand it, that the onus of proof should rest on the insured person is the very last thing the Minister wants. I think, therefore, the Committee will be well advised at this juncture to receive this Amendment.

5.7 p.m.

Mr. MAINWARING: When the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) endeavoured to point out the danger contained in the words now proposed to be inserted, it was obvious that there was considerable doubt as to the correctness of the point of view which he was endeavouring to put. May I give this from my personal experience, which will also serve to indicate that little if anything is changed in the present proposal of the Ministry from the actual situation which existed when the "not genuinely seeking" clause was in operation? When the "not genuinely seeking" clause was in operation the responsibility was upon the officer. It was the officer who had the responsibility of questioning any insured person in case of doubt, and in practice whenever he did question an individual, he was in effect charging him with not genuinely seeking work, and that charge resolved itself into an allegation that he had neglected an available opportunity of suitable employment. I can quite sympathise with many hon. Members who have expressed doubt as to the logic of the position, because it is precisely what we put up on behalf of the workmen when the same difficulty arose in years gone by.
I personally could not at first understand why it was that an insurance officer at a local exchange, or a chairman of a court of referees, or even the umpire himself could deem it at all reasonable that 100 men should be expected individually to look for one job that might be available. How could they deem it possible for every one of those 100 men to obtain that job? Yet that is precisely what they did hold, and in my personal experience scores, aye, hundreds and thousands of such men have been turned down by courts of referees, and those decisions have been upheld by the umpire. Let there be no mistake about it. This is no hypothetical danger that we are arguing, but something that we have gone through. I have personally known scores of cases before the umpire where it has been argued that if any one individual out of 5,000, say, who had signed on at the local exchange could be shown to have failed to go and ask for one job that was available, that might reasonably be held against him as having neglected an available opportunity. What the umpire would ask and did ask was, "How do you know that if this man had presented himself, he would not have got the job?"
In my judgment, the substitution of the words "neglected to avail himself of an opportunity of suitable employment" really is no improvement on the old "not genuinely seeking" Clause, and whatever hon. Members may think of our arguments, at any rate they cannot deny to me and many other hon. Members on these benches the actual experience that we have had. We are not talking about some hypothetical thing that might happen in the future, but of something that we have gone through for many years on behalf of many thousands of unemployed people in this country. Therefore, having regard to our experience, when we all agree as to the intention—there is no division in this Committee about the intention—to protect the unemployed man from any such evil, surely hon. Members are not going to blind themselves to our experience as to the danger implied in these words. To protect even their own intentions, therefore, we ask them to agree with us that we cannot accept these words.

5.12 p.m.

Sir H. BETTERTON: I do not know whether it will be for the convenience of the Committee that I should make a proposal now, but I agree, of course, that it is difficult at such short notice to appreciate the precise significance of the technical and local application of these words. I suggest that the actual wording of this proposal be considered by me between now and the Report stage. I will have regard to what has been said in all quarters of the House, and so long as the principle which I have endeavoured to lay down and the object which both the majority and the minority reports of the Commission had in mind are carried out, then I shall consider what is the best form of words for carrying out the purpose I have in view. I only make that proposal because I know there are a good many other matters to be discussed before seven o'clock.

Mr. MARTIN: On a point of Order. Shall we have an opportunity of putting down our own form of words on this matter between now and the Report stage?

The CHAIRMAN: That is hardly a point of Order. I shall not be presiding on the Report stage.

Mr. JANNER: On a point of Order. What will be the exact result of accepting the Minister's suggestion? Will it mean that we shall not proceed with this Clause now?

Sir H. BETTERTON: No.

Mr. JANNER: The right hon. Gentleman proposes to proceed with it now?

Sir H. BETTERTON: Certainly.

5.13 p.m.

Mr. GREENWOOD: As I understand it, the suggestion of the Minister is that the Committee should accept the words he has put before us to-day, subject to an undertaking on his part to reconsider the newly added words so as to see whether fresh words can be devised to meet the Minister's intentions and the wish of the Committee. So far as I am concerned in this connection, I shall be prepared to allow the Debate to end now, but I would put this point to the right hon. Gentleman, that on the Report stage, if this is going to be a matter of
controversy, the question of time will become important again, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider that aspect of the case.

Sir H. BETTERTON: Of course, it follows on my proposal that I must get this Amendment now.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I appreciate that, and I am not objecting to that. I am merely saying that, having got it on the Paper and then having to amend it later, this being a Government Amendment, hon. Members ought not to be robbed of discussing their own Amendments on this point on the Report stage.

5.14 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I cannot be a party to accepting anything but the complete deletion of this Sub-section (1).

The CHAIRMAN: I do not want the hon. Member to be under a misapprehension, but we have omitted Sub-section (1) already.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Yes, but I understood from the Minister that he was going to ask for the insertion of his Amendment. In that case, I am not going to be a party to it. I want to be quite frank with the Minister. His suggestion means shuffling. We shall still come back to the old issue whether the present words are going to stand or be amended. I am standing for no Amendment in principle in the present Bill. That is why I moved an Amendment with words which brought the Bill back to the principle which existed before. All that the Minister is doing by his present offer is to shuffle off, but we shall still come back to the issue, which is a simple one, namely, whether the present Act is satisfactory or not. I say that the present Act gives everybody everything that is desired, and I shall divide against the insertion of these or any other words that make the position worse than the present Statute.

5.17 p.m.

Mr. A. BEVAN: May I raise a point of procedure? If we accept the Amendment which the Minister now moves on the undertaking that he will amend it later, will that give us the chance of dividing against the Amendment itself at a subsequent stage? We are willing to accept the Amendment now on the assumption that it will be amended later. There
will then be a Debate. In the course of that Debate shall we have a chance of dividing against the Amendment in its entirety if we do not accept the Minister's new Amendment?

The CHAIRMAN: The Minister has undertaken, as I understand it, not to amend these words on Report, but to reconsider them between now and Report and to give hon. Members an opportunity of doing the same thing; and, if these words are now inserted, they will not come forward necessarily on the Report stage to be passed as part of the Bill as they would in Committee. It will be open to any hon. Member to put down an Amendment to leave out this particular Sub-section.

Mr. BEVAN: Therefore, the position in which we are left is that we are not given any more on the Report stage than we already have. We now have these words before us in the Committee stage, but we have no guarantee that we shall have them in our hands on the Report stage because we might not reach them.

Sir H. BETTERTON: I am not asking the hon. Member to accept this Amendment without a Division. If he objects to it, his logical course is to vote against it.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. JANNER: May I make an appeal to the Minister, in view of the difficulty that has arisen, to consider this matter from the other angle entirely. It is clear that all hon. Members realise that we have not had an opportunity of fully considering the effect of the Minister's Amendment, and it is not fair to ask the Committee to commit itself to the acceptance even provisionally of an Amendment with the nature of which we are not fully conversant. There is a much simpler method by which the Minister can obtain his ends. He can withdraw the Amendment now and put down an Amendment on the Report stage. That would give us ample time to consider and discuss it. It is not such a trivial matter as might appear on the surface. It is a serious thing to create a new offence, and that is what this Amendment is actually doing. What is the extent of that offence? I do not know. It would require much more time to realise what the repercussions of it are going to be, but undoubtedly it
creates a new offence by a man who is unemployed. It is true that it does not, on the face of it, place the onus upon the unemployed man, but it creates something further for him to answer, which ultimately means that the onus is actually being placed on his shoulders to controvert something with which he will be faced and in respect of which he may not have full knowledge.
It also makes the unemployment officer carry out a further invidious duty and places upon him a new obligation. It says to him, "You have now to do something further than you had to do under the previous Acts; you have now to make yourself in the nature of a prosecuting counsel and find out further facts with which to confront the unemployed person when he comes for relief." The result is that it creates a new and difficult position, so far as I see it. I do not say that I thoroughly understand it, but I am convinced that it creates a new difficulty for the unemployment officer. I want to put definitely to the Minister that there is no case which is not covered by the Act which is already in existence. See how clear it is—
If a claimant has without good cause refused or failed to carry out any written directions given to him by an officer of an Employment Exchange with a view to assisting him to find suitable employment (being directions which were reasonable having regard both to the circumstances of the claimant and to the means of obtaining that employment usually adopted in the district in which the claimant resides).
This is so clear that it is obvious to anybody that nothing further is necessary, unless there is some motive which one cannot understand. It does not say any particular job. It does not say that the unemployment officer is bound to say, "You have got to go to that job." He can give directions as to what type of job a man has to look for and where he is to look for it. What more is wanted? Why place the onus on both the officer and the applicant to do anything more than that? I cannot see how the Amendment is going to help, and I cannot see what effect it will have different from the effect of the words now in the Bill.
We want to make the community realise that the Employment Exchange is the place to which they should apply for work. It is being done now and we know that year by year applications are
coming in to the Employment Exchanges in greater numbers.
I have taken the trouble to find out what happens in my own constituency in regard to this matter. The applicants who were placed in work through the agency of the exchange in Stepney were 16,780 on the 23rd January, 1933, and 18,420 on 22nd January, 1934. That means that the community is realising more clearly year by year that its duty is to go to the Employment Exchange and ask for men when it requires them. That is what we want the community as a whole to understand and to appreciate. We do not want our men to go looking for jobs in places where they cannot exist. If an officer has three vacancies and 5,000 or 6,000 men on his books it is true that he may argue that some of them had neglected to avail themselves of the opportunity to fill the jobs merely because they had not gone after them. I believe it would be incumbent on him to say to a man, "You knew the job was going; have you been there to see about it? If not, why not?" If the man replies, "I did not know of it," the officer should in duty bound—

Sir L. THOMPSON: The proof would be on the officer.

Mr. JANNER: My hon. Friend knows very well that that does not actually prevail in practice. He knows if he has ever visited a court of law that the method of shifting the onus from one side to the other is not difficult. If it is a question of proving negligence, the prosecution will come forward and establish circumstantial evidence to show that there was negligence. They have only to establish a prima facie case and then the onus is shifted to the person answering that case to show that the prima facie case is not right. It is a case of "a thin partition their bounds divide" when it comes to a question of whether the onus is on the unemployment officer or on the man. What is the need for this alteration? I have heard nothing from the Minister to indicate that there is a need for it. If it is redundant, it is unnecessary. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) says that he does not care whether it is redundant or not; it should be taken out to make doubly sure. There are sometimes loopholes in these redundant Clauses which
do not make them so redundant as they seem. The Act is clear, and there is enough in the Act to meet what is necessary. It is not fair to impose anything more on the unemployed man when he is searching for work, and it is unfair at this stage to put us in the difficult position of having to vote for something with which we do not agree on the off-chance that on the Report stage we might be able to confirm the vote that we have cast to-day. That is not the way to do it. I suggest that the Minister should withdraw the Amendment now and give us an undertaking to put in something later when we can consider it fully.

5.28 p.m.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I thought the hon. Member was continuing the point with which the Debate was interrupted. Do I understand the position to be that if the suggestion to insert this Amendment is adopted there would then be an opportunity at a later stage for re-discussion? If that be so, and the later stage is taken under the Guillotine, there can be no guarantee that this matter will be discussed again. Is not the only possible way of ensuring that for the Minister to withdraw the whole Clause and put down a new Clause? The 12th day is allotted to new Clauses, and this new Clause would then become the first Order of the 12th day. There would be no difficulty in having a discussion then.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member has put a question on a point of Order. I hope I have not been understood to give any Ruling or make any statement other than a statement of what is the ordinary procedure. Members of the Committee know what the procedure is under the Guillotine, and the difference between procedure on Report stage and Committee stage.

5.31 p.m.

Mr. McENTEE: I have been hoping that the Minister would accept the suggestion made to him, and withdraw the Clause, because assuming that he gets the Clause now—which I should say he will—and later puts down an Amendment which has suggested itself to him between now and the Report stage, it may then be considered necessary to seek to amend that Amendment, yet we have no guarantee that there will be any oppor-
tunity to discuss either the Minister's Amendment or any other which may be put down. If the Minister will not withdraw the Clause, then I have to ask myself, in the first place, what was his intention in introducing this Amendment at all, and, in the second place, what is the real meaning of the words he now seeks to introduce—"the opportunity of work." What really is an opportunity of work? While my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) was putting what was regarded by some as an exaggerated case, I recalled to mind something that is happening now in my own constituency. The local authority have advertised for a public convenience attendant. From the experience of the past, I think it is safe to say there will be not fewer than 400 applicants for that position. I do not know how many men there are on the books of the local Employment Exchange, but probably there are some 3,000. Any one of them, probably, would be able to carry out the duties of a public convenience attendant, would be a suitable person for the post. Most certainly any ordinary working man could carry out the duties. I have said that probably 400 people will apply; let us assume that there are 1,200 people who are suitable for the job and who are now signing on at the Employment Exchange who do not apply.
What would be the position of those people in the event of these words being inserted in this Measure? A man who had not applied for the job might be told by one of the officials at the exchange, particularly if he were a man regarding whom there was some doubt whether he was genuinely seeking work. "I see that a job was advertised in the local Press; did you apply for it?" If the man said that he did not, it would be reasonable to suppose that the official might say, "Well, there was a job available for you, a job you could have done if you had got it, but you made no effort to obtain it. You must have known of the job, because it was publicly advertised. You are not making any reasonable effort to obtain work." Surely such a situation as that could arise in any district. I know of two or three similar cases in which jobs have been advertised within the last few months. There can scarcely have been a man or woman in Walthamstow who did not know of those jobs being available. Most of them say,
"I should like the job, but I have no chance of getting it," and they just do not apply. As they did not apply, then, under this new wording, it would be almost a certainty that they would lose their benefit.
Still, I can hardly believe that that is the intention of the Minister. If it is his intention that men should be treated reasonably, as I presume it is, why on earth does he want to change the existing regulations at all? Everybody who has spoken admits that they cover every reasonable opportunity for the exchange officers to induce people to try to get work, and give them every reasonable opportunity of striking off the very few persons as to whom there is evidence that they are not genuinely seeking work. I hope I shall get an opportunity of voting against this new form of words. Although I consider it to be a better formula than the one in the Bill as presented to the House, I shall vote against it because I feel it does not effect what the Minister himself appears to desire. I take the Minister at his word, and I do not think it is his intention to strike off benefit men who are reasonably seeking work. But I think it must have been proved to him to-day—the example I have just given is one which could be met with almost any day—that if he insists on inserting his Amendment it will result in striking off benefit many people who ought not to be struck off. If the Minister could improve the words in the way suggested by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), and were prepared between now and the Report stage to introduce words saying that an offer of work had to be made to the man, then I am quite sure nobody would object to the Clause.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: I would appeal to the Minister to consider seriously the suggestion put forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank). In these discussions we have to consider not only the merits of the subject before us but also the question of the time which is at our disposal. There is very little time to discuss Clauses. There are two important Clauses which will have to come up on the Report stage, and doubtless we shall find that there will be others. At the moment we are discussing a Clause for which the Minister himself cannot find a satisfac-
tory form of words. We go on discussing it but we are discussing it in the air although there are other important clauses to come before us to-night. If on the other hand this clause were withdrawn it could come up again as a new Clause and in the meantime the Minister would have had the opportunity to think out exactly what it is that he wants inserted in this Clause. I do not see that the rest of the Bill would suffer if this Clause were put back. We should have a full opportunity of discussing it under Committee conditions. With the amount of stuff already that there is likely to be before us on Report stage there is the greatest danger that we might find ourselves in a position in which time did not allow any opportunity for discussing any alternative to something which the Minister put forward which might not be regarded as satisfactory. I think the most practical suggestion has come from the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough, and it would assist both the House and the Minister if that were adopted.

5.40 p.m.

Sir H. BETTERTON: I am sorry that I cannot accept the suggestion. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) was in the Committee at the time, but the first Amendment passed was to leave out Sub-section (1) of Clause 6, and the position now is that there is a vacuum there. I am not prepared to agree to a Clause, or a part of a Clause, being moved out and nothing being put in its place at the time. As to the statement of the hon. Gentleman opposite that the words suggested in the Amendment are unsatisfactory, of course I do not admit that they are. What I have said is that I would consider them, and the suggestions that have been made, in order to see whether they can be improved or not. That is a fair offer, which I will certainly carry out, but I must not be taken as admitting for a moment that the words bear the interpretation which has been put upon them.

5.41 p.m.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Again I would make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, speaking for hon. Members on this side of the House. He has just said that as the first Sub-section has been taken out there are, in fact, no words
in front of the figure "2" in line 15. In the same way he might move that the words from there to the final words of the Clause might be conditionally moved out.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member's suggestion amounts to a request that the Minister should agree to this Clause being negatived and reserve his right to move a new Clause.

Captain CROOKSHANK: That is my suggestion. There would be an opportunity to move a new Government Clause on the day on which we take new Clauses, and being a Government Clause it would take precedence over all private Members' Clauses. As there has been no suggestion of any other Government new Clauses it would be the first Order of the Day on the 12th day of the proceedings under the Guillotine. That was my suggestion, and I only reinforce it, speaking for, certainly, some of the supporters of the Government, by saying that we have been just as astounded as anybody else by getting a manuscript Amendment of such importance as this to a Bill which has been in print since the 23rd November. We have not had the benefit of any legal statement on the point either from the Opposition Front Bench—which perhaps is not surprising, as the hon. and learned Gentleman over there is probably rather cautious about what he says now—but we might reasonably have expected some legal statement from our own side to amplify the Minister's opening speech. Frankly, I think that most of the Members who have listened to this Debate since it started feel they would like further time in which to make quite sure that these are the right words. We are flying in the face of the words of the Royal Commission. Their words are sacrosanct about a great many things; they were sacrosanct about the matters we discussed last night, I understood, and they are sacrosanct about the debt problem, and we wonder why there should have been this change, on so short notice, without enough opportunity for us to see the Amendment and to weigh it up. As to the hon. Gentleman below me who supported the Government from the depths of his knowledge, I would not contradict him on the spur of the moment, but I would like time to con-
sider this matter. He has obviously had more time, because his copy of the manuscript Amendment is not the same as my copy. It is on different paper, and so I think he must have heard of it before the rest of us.

Sir L. THOMPSON: You must have come in later than I did.

Captain CROOKSHANK: My real object is to plead with the right hon. Gentleman to give us a further opportunity when we can discuss this matter. To leave it to the Report stage, as he has suggested, gives us no guarantee, because no statement has been made as to whether the subsequent stages of the Bill are to be taken under the Guillotine or not. If they are carried on under the Guillotine, the right hon. Gentleman knows just as well as I do that the Government cannot guarantee the discussion even of their own Amendment. It entirely depends upon the trend of the Debate and the particular hour of the day when the Amendment comes up for discussion. They cannot guarantee it any more than the Chair can guarantee it. The only certain way of getting this matter ventilated is to negative this Clause and to put down a new one. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, at this early stage of the discussions upon this very difficult Bill to help the Committee as much as he can.

5.46 p.m.

Miss WARD: I associate myself with the hon. Member for Sunderland (Sir L. Thompson) in thanking the Minister very warmly for considering the redrafting of this Clause. It must be perfectly obvious that he is just as anxious as we are to ensure that there shall be no return to the conditions which operated under the genuinely-seeking-work Clause. We are very grateful to the Minister for giving us this opportunity of expressing our opinion and for altering the Clause in order that those of us who represent industrial constituencies shall not run the risk of the legal interpretation of the Clause being different from the intentions of the Minister. Perhaps it is only fair to say that there are two points connected with the Clause which we ought to take into consideration.

Mr. JANNER: Would the hon. Lady forgive me for interrupting? She said
that she did not want misunderstanding between the interpretation of the Bill and the intentions of the Minister, but we have not yet been told what the intentions of the Minister are.

Miss WARD: I think that I used the words that I did not want the legal interpretation different from the intention of the Minister. It must be obvious from the statement made in his opening speech that the right hon. Gentleman did not want to return to the conditions operating under the genuinely-seeking-work Clause. That is the crux of the discussion to-day. As I understand the position, the Opposition as well as hon. Members on this side, are of the same opinion. We are all united in trying to insert a Clause which will not in any circumstances whatsoever cause a return to conditions operating under the genuinely-seeking-work Clause. I hope that I have made the position clear.

Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. I dislike to interrupt the hon. Lady, but, I would like to ask her, why alter the present Clause? Coming as she does from an industrial constituency, what does she know of any recent local instance which provides a reason for altering the Clause?

Miss WARD: I am only too delighted to answer the question put by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). I repeat I want to be quite certain that we are not to return to the conditions operating under the genuinely-seeking-work Clause. There are two important points which must be taken into consideration by the Minister under this Clause. The first is that no man genuinely unemployed shall be penalised because of the legal interpretation of the Clause, and, secondly, the regulations must be so watertight as to prevent abuse of the fund. From the point of view of His Majesty's Government, there are those two considerations; I am seeking for a Clause which will adequately cover these points. If I may return to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Sunderland; I agree with him in the views he expressed, and have complete confidence that the Minister will use the opportunity for time to consider for the purpose of finding some way out of this rather difficult situation. I merely wish to reiterate that, from the Minister's own
expressed attitude, he is one with us in trying to find a reasonable solution. I accept his attitude in the spirit in which it is meant, and thank him very warmly for his consideration in allowing the Clause to be redrafted.

5.51 p.m.

Mr. MARTIN: Following the hon. Lady the Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward), I reiterate the phrase "legal interpretation." That was the whole point of the speech of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan), which received a great deal of response in the Committee. Is it not in order to ask the Law Officers of the Crown whether they agree with the view or not? We have a Law Officer sitting on the Front Bench. Would he not give his opinion as to the interpretation to be put upon the Clause?

5.52 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: It is most unfortunate that the Committee should be in the position in which it now is, obviously anxious to debate this matter, but unable to do so because of considerations of time. Every minute that we spend on this point is depriving us of opportunities for discussing other things. One can feel all over the Committee a certain breathlessness about everybody who gets up to speak. We are tumbling over one another to say the most we can in the shortest possible time. I at once accept the Minister's suggestion as an attempt to save the time of the Committee, but I do not think that he has been quite candid, and I am very suspicious of him. He is the most genial and kindly Minister who has ever sat on that bench. He is ready to make concessions all over the place, and everybody runs away with the impression, because of that, that he is soft. That is the most profound mistake. He knows his job as well as any Minister who ever sat there. He knows that while he does not want to re-establish the not-genuinely-seeking work position, he wants something between not-genuinely-seeking work and the 1930 position. He has not told us why.
The right hon. Gentleman referred very vaguely to the Royal Commission's Report, but that does not answer anything at all. This Committee is entitled to know what experience has been obtained at the Employment Exchanges since the 1930 Clause came into operation, leading
the Ministry to think that they need some greater disciplinary control over unemployed men than is at present given by the 1930 Clause. I cannot see in the 1930 Act a loophole for the dodger, nor can I see a point where officials can use their power oppressively for the purpose of harassing an unemployed man whom they do not like. It is a good Clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and I have a particular affection for it because it took a devil of a struggle to extract it from the late Labour Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) remembers very well the occasion when it was extracted, and the part that he played. On that occasion, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals reminds me, Law Officers of the highest rank ran backwards and forwards with tense excitement and all the rest of it, and there was much cogitation and discussion both in the House and in private. The result was a Clause which, as far as we know, has never been publicly questioned by anyone who has operated the Act. What is the objection to maintaining it? The Minister has not told us, and the hon. Member for Sunderland (Sir L. Thompson) does not know, any more than anybody else.

Sir L. THOMPSON: Including the hon. Member.

Mr. MAXTON: The onus of proof is not upon me, I do not understand, and therefore I do not accept. The hon. Member for Sunderland says, "I do not understand and therefore I do accept." The Minister obviously is disinclined to a proper and adequate discussion of it. He refuses to accept the very reasonable proposal of the hon. and gallant Member for Gains-borough (Captain Crookshank). He tells us that we shall have an opportunity upon the Report stage. It is going to be a great Report stage. All the things that we do not like in each of the allotted periods of the Time-Table are to be brought up on that Report stage. The hon. and gallant Member for Gains-borough is wrong in saying that the Report stage is not guillotined. If I remember rightly we are allowed four days under the Time-Table for the Report stage and Third Reading. There is not an unlimited time for close and intensive examination during four days for the whole
Bill, added to the fact that the power of selection on the part of the Chair becomes a very strong one on the Report stage. I suppose it will be wrong of me to suggest, or to make even this whisper, but the sort of understanding between the Minister and the Chair gets more harmonious on the Report stage than during the Committee stage. It is necessary, in order to facilitate the work of the House.
If the Minister wants to assist himself and the Committee he can do so by getting up and telling the Committee what evidence has been brought to him which leads him to believe that the Clause in the 1930 Act, part, of which was read by the hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Janner), needs alteration. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read the Clause."] Here is the whole Clause:
If on a claim for benefit it is proved by an officer of the Ministry of Labour that the claimant, after a situation in any employment which is suitable in his case has been notified to him by an Employment Exchange or other recognised agency, or by or on behalf of an employer as vacant or about to become vacant, has without good cause refused or failed to apply for such situation, or refused to accept such situation when offered to him, or if it is proved by an officer of the Ministry of Labour that a claimant has, without good cause, refused or failed to carry out any written directions given to him by an officer of an Employment Exchange with a view to assisting him to find suitable employment (being directions which were reasonable having regard both to the circumstances of the payment and to the means of obtaining that employment usually adopted in the district in which the claimant resides) he shall be disqualified for receiving benefit for a period of six weeks, or for such shorter period and from such date as may be determined by the court of referees or the umpire, as the case may be.
What is wrong with that Clause?

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: If no notification is given to the man, and there is no direction from the officer, is there any obligation on the man to look for work?

Mr. MAXTON: Yes; there is a general obligation on every unemployed man to seek work.

Mr. KNIGHT: My hon. Friend is relying on those words, and the Committee desires an understanding. I am suggesting to the Committee, on this recital, that those words turn on a notification or direction; and, as I understand the words
proposed by the Minister, it is intended to enlarge those words to include the search of the man outside the notification or direction.

Mr. MAXTON: I am sorry, but I cannot agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman, because I do not follow him. If I were a Minister, I should say that he ought to have put a difficult legal question like that in written form, so that I could have an opportunity of considering it. I am not trying to make awkward difficulties; I just do not understand. Honestly, I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman is trying to help me or trying to hinder me.

Mr. KNIGHT: This is a very serious matter, which the Committee wants to understand. The hon. Gentleman, to the advantage of the Committee, has read certain words. I ask him, on that recital, whether those words do not turn on a notification or direction. They contemplate no other circumstances. The Amendment of the Minister contemplates circumstances turning neither on a notification nor on a direction, but putting a duty on the man himself.

Mr. MAXTON: That is the accusation that is made by the Opposition against the Minister—the hon. and learned Gentleman's Minister—that he is trying to re-institute the "not genuinely seeking work" provision. The hon. and learned. Gentleman knows that, if I had had my way, he would have been a Law Officer, but, unfortunately, we are both bound by the position in which we sit in the House. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will leave his Minister to me for the moment, I will try to deal with him. I am not accusing him of that of which the hon. and learned Gentleman is accusing him. I am not accusing him of attempting to re-institute the "not genuinely seeking work" provision—

Mr. KNIGHT: Nor am I. Do not put words in my month.

Mr. MAXTON: I am asking the Minister a simple question to guide me, and, incidentally, it might answer the difficulty that is in the mind of the hon. and learned Gentleman: What has happened at the Employment Exchanges between 1930 and the present day that leads him to believe that the existing
Clause is not meeting all the needs of the situation, that it is not safeguarding the interests of the Insurance Fund and safeguarding the interests of the insured person without imposing upon the insured person the hideous inquisition which, to every one of us who recollects it in the pre-1930 period, was a torture to the large mass of the unemployed people in this country, and an unfair way of protecting the fund as against the rights of the man?

Miss WARD: If I might interrupt the hon. Member for a moment, I would suggest that he will find his answer in the majority and minority reports of the Royal Commission.

Mr. MAXTON: Will the hon. Lady refer me precisely to the page in the volume?

Miss WARD: It is in paragraph 439, on page 235:
Having regard to the combined effect of these measures"—
that is to say, the general measures governing the payment of unemployment benefit—
we do not consider that the condition 'genuinely seeking work' should be restored. But we recommend that the present disqualification should be replaced by the original condition 'unable to obtain suitable employment'.
Does the hon. Member wish me to read the whole paragraph?

Mr. MAXTON: If the hon. Lady wishes to be effective, she will have to read more than she has read.

Miss WARD: It goes on:
Under the present rule, a situation must be notified to a claimant before the disqualification can operate, and the disqualification has no effect upon a claimant who, knowing that work could be obtained if he applied for it, omits to make any application. Under the original condition ('unable to obtain suitable employment'), the Umpire held that it was 'for an applicant to satisfy the court of referees or the Umpire that on any day on which he claims benefit he was unable to obtain suitable employment, and that, if it appears that he knew that there was a possibility of getting work and did not take reasonable steps to get it, he does not show that he was unable to get it.' … If that condition were restored, and if it were administered in the way in which it was administered when it formed a part of the Third Statutory Condition, the effect would be that a claimant would not lose his benefit unless the court were satisfied
that he knew that there was a possibility of getting work and he did not take reasonable steps to get it. It has been suggested that such a condition might be so construed as in effect to require a claimant to prove that he was genuinely seeking work. We do not think that such a construction would be right, and we are satisfied that no such construction was put upon the condition when it formed part of the Acts from 1920 to 1924, before the condition 'genuinely seeking work' was introduced into the insurance scheme. For these reasons we recommend that a claimant should be required to prove that he is 'unable to obtain suitable employment' and that the present disqualification under Section 4 (1) of the Act of 1930 should be repealed.
I understand that the minority report accepted that recommendation of the majority report.

Captain CROOKSHANK: The Minister has turned it over.

Mr. MAXTON: I am sorry to have put the hon. Lady to the trouble of reading all that. She did it, if I may say so, very distinctly and clearly, and I am sure that the whole Committee will thank her for it. It is a very clear statement of what the Commission thought, but it gives not one solitary reason. The Minister refers us to the evidence, which he knows, of course, we have not available at the moment, but which my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and myself, and another former colleague of ours whom he used to know very well, went into in very great detail. We have refreshed our memories on it again and again, and we cannnot find any justification in any of the evidence given there for the reimposition of anything approximating to the old "not genuinely seeking work" provision. We particularly object to leaving the Clause that is going to deal with this matter in any condition of vague generality which leaves the man at the mercy of interpretation—either interpretation by a local official, by a chairman of a court of referees, or by the Umpire. We will not agree to any form of words which leaves the insured person at the mercy of a vague generality. We do not see any reason why the Clause of the Act of 1930 should not be maintained in the existing legislation, and I can assure the Minister that, from the point of view of his own personal com-
fort, he would do better to bear the ills he has than fly to others that he knows not of.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. BATEY: The hon. and learned Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight) interrupted the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) when he was reading a Clause from the Act of 1930, and he thought it was reasonable on the part of the Minister to seek to amend that Clause. I want to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to remember that he was responsible for that Clause in the Act of 1930. It was passed by the Government that he was supporting then, and, therefore, he was responsible for the words which the hon. Member for Bridgeton read.

Mr. KNIGHT: I would remind the hon. Member that that Clause, which was inserted by the late Labour Government, has now to be reviewed in the light of the evidence given before and the recommendations of the Royal Commission.

Mr. BATEY: The Clause is there, and it was passed by the Government which the hon. and learned Member was supporting. I rose because two Members from the North of England have entered into this Debate, the hon. Member for Sunderland (Sir L. Thompson) and the hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward), and the impression that one would get from the speeches of those two northern Members is that they, representing the working class in the North of England, would make matters worse for those who are unemployed at the present time. They may claim that they represent the unemployed in the North of England at the present time, but I would like an opportunity of going to a meeting in either of their Divisions and arguing this question before the unemployed there. The hon. Member for Sunderland was bad, but the hon. Member for Wallsend is worse, because she seems to think that there are not sufficient safeguards at the present time, and that there ought to be far more penalties for those who are unemployed than exist at present. She is not satisfied with the Clause in the Act of 1930. She thinks that it does not meet the situation, that some of the unemployed escape through that Clause, and that it should be made more stringent. I think that any Member
coming from the North of England, representing an industrial Division, and believing that at the present time there are not sufficient safeguards in regard to the unemployed, is misrepresenting the unemployed in the North of England.

Miss WARD: If I may interrupt the hon. Member, I think he is entirely misrepresenting my views. If I may say so, I am supporting the Minister in an alteration of the Clause which from my point of view, rightly or wrongly, I consider is going to make it better for the unemployed. The mere fact that I read a paragraph from the Royal Commission's Report in answer to a statement made by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) does not in any way commit me to the findings of the Royal Commission's Report.

Mr. BATEY: If it does not commit the hon. Lady to the findings of the Royal Commission's Report, she seems to take a rare delight in reading those findings. These are two Northern Members misrepresenting the unemployed in their divisions.

Sir L. THOMPSON: I must take serious objection to the statement that I am misrepresenting the unemployed in my constituency. It is agreed by hon. Members opposite that the Clause as it stands, putting the onus of proof on the unemployed, is not acceptable in any part of the Committee. I am supporting an Amendment which removes the onus of proof from the unemployed.

Mr. BATEY: I am not in the least surprised at the hon. Gentleman's attitude, because I believe that he is prepared to back the Government through thick and thin. It does not matter what they propose, I believe the hon. Member would support them. He says he does not believe that he is suggesting anything which will make it worse for the unemployed, but he is adding another penalty. He is making it possible for more of them to lose their benefit. If he does not want to injure the unemployed, why not stick to the present Clause? It is because he has the feeling that there should be another penalty put on them that he is supporting the Amendment. It is not sufficient for either him or the hon. Member for Wallsend to say, "We do not want the not genuinely-seeking-work Clause," when
they support an Amendment like this, which is far more dangerous. If we had the words "not genuinely seeking work," we could understand it, but the Minister is stealing a march upon the Committee with words of the most dangerous nature, that the claimant has neglected to avail himself of an opportunity of suitable employment. What will happen is this. In Wallsend, which I know well, if 50 men are wanted to start a colliery, the insurance officer can say to a miner, "Have you applied for work?" If he says "No," the officer will say, "You have neglected to avail yourself of an opportunity of suitable employment," and he can put the man out of his benefit. It is not fair for Members coming from industrial divisions and pretending they are representing the unemployed to support an Amendment like this.

6.19 p.m.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR-WEDDERBURN: Since the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) repeatedly asked what were the reasons for superseding the provisions of the 1930 Act, and since he took the trouble to read verbatim provisions laid down in that Act, I should like to read to him a paragraph in the Report which specifically refers to his quotation from the 1930 Act.
Under both parts of this test the initial onus is placed on the Employment Exchange. Under (a) the exchange must notify the claimant of a suitable situation; under (b) it must give the claimant written directions with a view to assisting him to find suitable employment. We have dealt elsewhere with the functions of the exchanges under the Labour Exchanges Act, 1909, and have expressed concurrence with their established practice of sending to an employer only the applicants industrially best qualified for a vacancy notified by the employer. It follows that the value of provision (a) as a test of the bona fides of a claimant is closely circumscribed and that in the case of an unwilling worker the value of the test is negligible. With regard to (b) we found that the power to give written directions has in fact been used very sparingly and that any considerable use of the power—especially its use solely as a test of claimant's bona fides—is calculated adversely to affect the proper performance by the exchanges of their functions under the Labour Exchanges Act.
The hon. Member may not agree with these reasons which have been given, but he cannot claim that no reasons have been given for superseding the provisions of the 1930 Act.
For these reasons we find the present disqualification for benefit, as contained in Section 4 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1930, to be largely non-effective in checking the claim of persons who do not desire to work or are not making reasonable efforts to obtain work, and we do not think the test in its present form could be made effective. While a test of willingness to work must give rise to difficulties of administration, we do not consider that such a test is impossible to administer.
The hon. Member's life has been spent in close contact with the conditions with which we are dealing, and we listen with respect to anything that he may say, but do not let him say that no reasons at all have been put forward and accepted by the House and the Government for superseding the provisions of the 1930 Act. It seems to me that nearly all the speeches that have been made against the Amendment ought more properly to have been directed against the operation of the not-genuinely-seeking-work Clause and, since hon. Members opposite will not allow that the construction which will be placed on the Amendment is that which the Minister himself desires to be placed on it, it is perhaps not out of place to remind him that the not-genuinely-seeking-work Clause was imposed by the Labour party, who were evidently quite incapable of foreseeing the construction which would be placed on it. I am assuming that the Labour party did not mean it to be interpreted in the manner in which it was interpreted.
As for the words of the Clause as they stood before being amended, it seems to me that they did no more than put us back in the position in which we stood between 1920 and 1924, before the not-genuinely-seeking-work Clause was introduced, and during that period all those hardships which were envisaged by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan), and which admittedly occur under the administration of the not-genuinely-seeking-work Clause, did not exist. Even if we had left the Clause as it was and no Amendment had been made at all, there would still have been no ground for objection which could properly be brought forward. Since this is a matter of enormous importance to the unemployed population, we recognise that any proposal to interfere in any way with the third statutory condition must give rise to the very greatest anxiety, and I am
sure that it is on account of that that the Minister has brought forward the Amendment. I believe that, if he had left the Clause as it stood, there would have been no ground for any serious apprehension. I think all sections of the Committee are agreed as to the intention. We all agree that, if a man is not making a reasonable effort to obtain work, he ought not to be qualified, and we equally agree that a man ought not be made to roam around the country looking for work at every factory, which he knows he cannot obtain, before he qualifies for benefit. Our only difficulty is to find a form of words which will give practical effect to intentions which are common to the great majority of the House. It is only because of apprehensions, which were not unnatural, and not because he really believed it to be in effect necessary, that the Minister introduced this Amendment, and I think the proposed words will give practical effect to the intentions of the Committee.

6.27 p.m.

Mr. HOROBIN: I regret very much that the Minister was not able to accept the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) and, if this goes to a Division, I shall certainly vote against the Government. That has nothing to do with the merits of the Minister's proposal, which seems to me perfectly sound and desirable on its merits, but I ask him and the Committee to consider a point which has not, perhaps, been sufficiently emphasised, and which is very important in these days. We are dealing with the rights and, in a sense, with the property of a very large number of people. This statutory condition has to be satisfied by something like 750,000 people making new claims every month. Suppose this Committee was faced with a Labour Government and we were discussing under the Guillotine a Bill which was going to decide compensation in cases of property to the tune of 750,000 every month and there was any question that we were not going to have a sufficient opportunity for discussing it, we should say, rightly, that it was an abuse of the powers of the House.
What is the position? The present Act has been in force for several years in its present form and we know how it is being administered. A Royal Commission was set up and heard evidence
and sat for months considering its report. Its terms were incorporated in this Bill. The quotations which have been read from it are totally beside the point. They may be a very good reason for the Bill as we now have it, but they cannot conceivably be craved in aid for altering it at the last minute, because the Bill as we have it contains the provisions which the Royal Commission ask should be incorporated. We had the Royal Commission's Report and it was put into a Bill which was presented before the Recess. All of us who are interested in the subject have carefully considered the Bill for months. Now, with not even 24 hours' notice, we are presented with a vital change. The terms of that change are irrelevant. As far as I have been able to consider them, the terms now proposed to us are fair.
There I differ entirely from Members on those benches, but I submit to the Committee that is an irrelevant point. It is not fair when we are considering the property—for it is property—and the happiness of millions of people of this country, to the tune of 750,000 or more individual determinations every calendar month in the light of proposals which have been before the country for months. It is not right, when there is a perfectly easy way out of it, that we should be asked possibly to put it out of the power of this House to consider carefully what we are doing. It is upon those grounds, upon the wide grounds of the rights of the people of this country of which we are the guardians, that I submit that the Committee ought not at this moment to take a step which may put it out of our power to consider these matters more carefully than we can possibly do at the moment. If the matter goes to a Division, I for one shall go, in very strange company, into the Lobby against it.

6.31 p.m.

Mr. BOOTHBY: I endorse every word which came from my hon. Friend. I frankly confess that I do not fully understand the implication of the Amendment which has been handed in by the Minister. I do not know how anybody in this Committee can fully understand its full implication. I do not accept the views of any of the hon. Members who have spoken, either on one side or the other. I do not think that we can be
expected fully to appreciate the possible effects of the Amendment in so short a time. I feel very strongly that in a matter which is admitted on all sides to be vital, the Government can treat the House and Committee in this very cavalier way. It is doubly important when hon. Members who support the Government with such a large majority are acting as trustees for a very important body of the nation at the present time in considering a most vital aspect of this Measure. I do not think that the Government have brought forward any sufficient or valid excuse for putting down the Amendment to-day and asking us to consider it this afternoon. There is no certainty that we shall be able to consider it on the Report stage, because it comes under the Guillotine Motion, and we do not know whether the Chair will accept this particular Section for discussion on that occasion. I, for my part, without committing myself in respect of the merits of this proposal, could not possibly support the Government in the Division Lobby upon an Amendment which we have seen for the first time this afternoon.

6.33 p.m.

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: I wish to support what my hon. Friend has said, and to make an appeal to the Minister and ask him to convey it to the Patronage Secretary. Personally, I agree with an hon. Member who spoke earlier in the Debate that it is better to have the Amendment than let the Bill go forward without the Minister being satisfied as to its contents. Having put down the Amendment, it is the Government who have taken the time in the Debate to-day, and quite rightly so. Further Debate is required on this particular point, which is one of great substance. It is now 25 minutes to seven o'clock, and at 7.30 the Guillotine will fall. No doubt this question will be debated probably up to that time, and we shall then have to pass the following Clause, which is a most important one, without any Debate whatever. I cannot feel that the Government foresaw the circumstances which have arisen to-night. I would ask the Patronage Secretary whether he cannot bring forward an Amendment to the Guillotine programme in order that this House may be held in respect by the electors whom we repre-
sent, and also that we may do justice to the trust which has been put in us by the millions whom we represent. It is really a state of affairs which I do not think the Government themselves like having thrust upon them, and that, I suggest, would be the easiest way out.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I should not have risen except for what has been said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Captain Balfour). I have been here almost the whole of the afternoon and have heard a very large number of the speeches. I heard the brilliant speech of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), and admired the skill with which he delivered it. Nothing is more helpful than to read out large blocks of a report or anything else when you have not very much to say. I have had some experience of that myself. The Government have come down to-day and made a tremendouns concession in this Amendment which entitles them to some credit. If the hon. and gallant Member for Thanet had been here the whole of the time I think he would realise that the Government have done everything possible to meet the Committee in this respect. It would be wrong for any one who has been here for a large part of the time—and no one dislikes the Guillotine more than I do—not to realise that what has really happened is, that the time which should have been taken up on the other two Clauses has been used up by the concession of the Government. I should like the Government to remember, before they make a concession in the future, that very often, as in this particular case, brevity is not one of the things you get in the House of Commons after making a concession. Nothing is easier than to hang a case, as has occurred this afternoon, on the question of a concession. I hope that when

further time is asked for, the Government will take what has happened during the last three hours into very close consideration. The Government have tried to meet the difficulties, and I hope that they will not give way on this matter as they have been requested to do by one or two hon. Members in the last few minutes, for it will not be in the best interests of the House.

6.38 p.m.

Mr. KENNETH LINDSAY: I rise only because of the remarks of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams). I have sat here through the whole of the Debate, and the only reason I have got up at this point is to ask the Minister, if he is not able to accept the very reasonable suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), if he can give us from his administrative experience any concrete particulars before we vote upon this matter? It is not a question which we can pass over lightly. We shall have to answer for it, and we shall have to go back to industrial constituencies and face this kind of point. It is not a minor point, but one upon which people will be turned down time after time, and I am not prepared to vote in favour of an Amendment of this kind, not that I accept the view of hon. Members opposite. It is far too serious. Some of us have given much time to the Bill, and would like to reconsider this Clause and ask for expert opinion, and perhaps go back to our constituencies, before voting upon a form of words which is still vague and open, at any rate, to two types of understanding, one on this side of the House and one on the other side. I therefore ask, whether there will be any opportunity for some further consideration?

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 281; Noes, 75.

Division No. 76.]
AYES.
[6.40 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Brass, Captain Sir William


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Broadbent, Colonel John


Albery, Irving James
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Brocklebank, C. E. R.


Alexander, Sir William
Blindell, James
Brown, Ernest (Leith)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Bossom, A. C.
Browne, Captain A. C.


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Boulton, W. W.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Burghley, Lord


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Burnett, John George


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Burton, Colonel Henry Walter


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Boyce, H. Leslie
Butler, Richard Austen


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Cadogan, Hon. Edward


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Ratcliffe, Arthur


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Hepworth, Joseph
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Carver, Major William H.
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Castlereagh, Viscount
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Remer, John R.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hornby, Frank
Rickards, George William


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Ross, Ronald D.


Chamberlain,Rt.Hon.Sir J.A.(Birm., W)
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Runge, Norah Cecil


Clarke, Frank
Jamleson, Douglas
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Clarry, Reginald George
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Salt, Edward W.


Conant, R. J. E.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Cook, Thomas A.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Cooke, Douglas
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Cooper, A. Dull
Law, Sir Alfred
Savery, Samuel Servington


Copeland, Ida
Leckie, J. A.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Cranborne, Viscount
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Crooke, J. Smedley
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Shute, Colonel J. J.


Crossley, A. C.
Liddall, Walter S.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Llewellin, Major John J.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Denville, Alfred
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Somervell, Sir Donald


Donner, P. W.
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Doran, Edward
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Soper, Richard


Dower, Captain A. V. G.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Drewe, Cedric
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
McKie, John Hamilton
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Duggan, Hubert John
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Spens, William Patrick


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington,N.)
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Eady, George H.
Magnay, Thomas
Stanley Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Eden, Robert Anthony
Maitland, Adam
Stevenson, James


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Makins Brigadier-General Ernest
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Storey, Samuel


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Elmley, Viscount
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Strauss, Edward A.


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Meller, Sir Richard James
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Milne, Charles
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.(P'dd'gt'n,S.)


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Morgan, Robert H.
Thompson, Sir Luke


Fox, Sir Gifford
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Morrison, William Shepherd
Todd, A. L. S (Kingswinford)


Gault, Lieut.-Col, A. Hamilton
Moss, Captain H. J.
Train, John


Gibson, Charles Granville
Munro, Patrick
Tree, Ronald


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Gledhill, Gilbert
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Gluckstein, Louis Haile
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Goff, Sir Park
North, Edward T.
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Nunn, William
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Granville, Edgar
O'Connor, Terence James
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Graves, Marjorie
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G.A.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Palmer, Francis Noel
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Greene, William P. C.
Patrick, Colin M.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Peaks, Captain Osbert
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Grimston, R. V.
Pearson, William G.
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Peat, Charles U.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Pike, Cecil F.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hanbury, Cecil
Pybus, Sir Percy John
Withers, Sir John James


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Radford, E. A.
Womersley, Walter James


Harbord, Arthur
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Hartland, George A.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)



Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Ramsbotham, Herwald
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Sir George Penny and Commander Southby


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Rankin, Robert





NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Macmillan, Maurice Harold


Aske, Sir Robert William
Groves, Thomas E.
Mainwaring, William Henry


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grundy, Thomas W.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Banfield, John William
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Batey, Joseph
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Maxton, James


Bernays, Robert
Harris, Sir Percy
Milner, Major James


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Healy, Cahir
Owen, Major Goronwy


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Holdsworth, Herbert
Paling, Wilfred


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Horobin, Ian M.
Parkinson, John Allen


Buchanan, George
Janner, Barnett
Price, Gabriel


Cape, Thomas
Jenkins, Sir William
Rea, Walter Russell


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Cove, William G.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Curry, A. C.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Daggar, George
Kirkwood, David
Thorne, William James


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Leonard, William
Wallhead, Richard C.


Dobbie, William
Lindsay, Kenneth Martin (Kilm'rnock)
White, Henry Graham


Edwards, Charles
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Lunn, William
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Mabane, William



Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
McEntee, Valentine L.
Mr. John and Mr. D. Graham.

6.49 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to move, in page 6, after the words last inserted, to insert "definitely offered to him."
It is not my intention to detain the Committee, because we have spent a tremendous amount of time on this matter. The acceptance of our Amendment would result in the words reading:
or if it is proved by an officer of the Ministry of Labour that the claimant has neglected to avail himself of an opportunity of suitable employment, definitely offered to him.
We think that before a man undertakes the risk of losing his benefit he ought to have a definite offer of a job. That is a perfectly fair proposition to make. Any other proposition is unfair, and places the man in an impossible position.

6.50 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I am afraid that it is impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment. I am sure that the hon. Member who moved it must realise that this was likely to be the case.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I do not.

Mr. HUDSON: The whole point of the difficulty that has arisen in administering this particular Section of the Act of 1930 has been that of making a man a definite offer of a job. The words that we are proposing to insert are put forward in order to close a gap. To add to those words the very words whose existence
causes difficulty would defeat the whole object of our Amendment. For these reasons, we cannot accept the hon. Member's Amendment.

6.51 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The case for my Amendment has not been answered We say that a job should be definitely offered. The Parliamentary Secretary has spoken of the difficulty that exists in administration. Will the Committee note how he is shifting his ground? First he says that he is proposing to alter the Act of 1930 because the Royal Commission recommended that course, and now he is saying, "I am not doing it because the Royal Commission recommended it, but because it has been found administratively impossible definitely to offer a man a job." The Ministry of Labour is a great agency. It has employment officers, apart from insurance officers, who go up and down the country trying to find jobs. The Employment Exchanges have what is known as a work-finding department, with expert officers deputed to find jobs for people. They act as canvassers, looking for work in the great industrial districts. These canvassers, with all their ability, cannot get the offer of a job for these men, and yet a man is to be disqualified because he cannot get what the paid officers of the Ministry of Labour cannot find for him.
The more one examines this matter, the more danger arises. The Minister has a staff of ability and character. In the City of Glasgow there are capable
men from the Department, hunting for jobs, first-class men, and they cannot find jobs to offer to men. Whenever they do find a job and it is offered to a man and he refuses it, he is disqualified. That is the law now and we do not object to it, but we do say that with all the powerful agencies of the Ministry, their contacts and their telephones, they cannot get jobs. I cannot understand why science and technique should be applied to ordinary life in order to ease life, and yet it is not brought in to ease the life of the unemployed. It means that we are still back at the old barbarous state. I attend frequently at the court of referees where the men are examined as to their search for work. At the present time we have the not-genuinely-seeking-work condition on the Statute Book. It is called, "not normally in insurable employment," but it is really the not-genuinely-seeking-work provision.
Men are asked if they have searched for work. There are telephones at the Employment Exchanges and there are telephones at the works. In my own division there are very few, if any, works; the works are miles away. Why should not the telephone at the Employment Exchange be used and inquiry be made at the works? Why should men have to spend hours in search of work when a mere telephone inquiry would suffice? The Minister may say, "Until there is compulsory notification we are unable to work your system," but I say that the failure of the Government to get compulsory notification ought not to be so used that the unemployed man has to bear the burden of it. No man ought to run the danger of being disqualified unless as a preliminary he has had a definite offer of a job. We are here dealing only with standard benefit. You are increasing the disqualification of the man. The Amendment which I have proposed is one which hon. Members carry out in their every-day lives. There is a prominent King's Counsel sitting on one of the benches opposite. I would ask him how in the Law Courts he could found a charge against a man because he has been unable to get a job? What would be the indictment? If the man has been offered a job and he has refused it, that is a definite offer and there is something to go on, but there is nothing to go on if no definite offer of a job can be made. I
trust that the Committee, without any feeling of party prejudice, will support our Amendment.

Mr. HUDSON: I think that the hon. Member is labouring under a misapprehension as to the effect and the object of this Amendment. There are a certain number of cases where it can be shown quite definitely that a man knew of the existence of a job and that the job was open to him, but that he did not go and take it up. The job offered was not necessarily at the time known to the Exchange. Under the existing law there is no possible means of dealing with that man. I do not say that there are a very large number of men concerned, but there are a number, and we cannot touch them as the law stands. The Amendment is designed to deal with those few, and no more. The hon. Member is quite incorrect in thinking that we have in mind a much larger field—

Mr. BUCHANAN: The hon. Member states this case: that a man may know of a job. The type of men we are discussing now are all people with insurance records; every one of them is a regular working man with full insurance qualifications. The presumption is, therefore, that these men are looking for work and have not been a long time unemployed. A man with a first-class insurance record who knows of a job but does not go for it is charged with the offence of not going for a job when he knows that one exists, but the indictment that the Parliamentary Secretary is framing is not that he refused to go for a job when he knew it existed, but that the exchange thought that he refused to go. There is no charge against him that Mr. Jones, carpenter, refused to go to Mr. Brown, an employer of carpenters, on a particular date when a job was offered him. If that were the charge the man could meet it; he could say, "I did not know there was a job at Mr. Brown's for a carpenter at that particular date." But the charge is that the man is not able to get a job at any particular time, without a specified time or place ever being named. There is no need for the answer to prove any particular offence or time or place. Assume that a firm has vacancies and a man does not go. The officer at the moment can say, "I have notified John Jones to go to Messrs. Brown, carpenters,
and he has not gone." That is punishable now under the 1930 Act. Messrs. Brown, carpenters, have a job vacant and notify John Jones that he can come and he does not; that is a disqualification under the present Section 4 (1):
If on a claim for benefit it is proved by an officer of the Ministry of Labour that the claimant, after a situation in any employment which is suitable in his case has been notified to him by an Employment Exchange or other recognised agency, or by or on behalf of an employer"—
In other words, if an officer now says to John Jones, "There was a job you could have gone to in Messrs. Brown's shipyard, and you have not gone," the man can now be disqualified. But the position to which the Minister takes us is that the exchange say, "We have heard"—just imagine that as evidence in a court of law!—"that men have been started by Messrs. Brown; we think that you should have been one of those men; why were you not one of the men who were started?" The man has no answer, because he does not know. How can a man prove that he went to a firm? John Brown employ 5,000 men; how does a foreman or any man know whether I go down there or not? There was a system, which the umpires did well to abolish, of the giving of cards to applicants for work; it was open to every possible abuse in the way of slinging the cards about, and was so grievously abused that every decent man at the exchange asked for its abolition. The result is that the man cannot prove that he went to the employer at all, but the exchange will say, "We know that there were certain men started and you were not one of them; why not?" and he must show why he was not.

Viscountess ASTOR: Is that true?

Mr. HUDSON: Only if he has been notified that there was a certain vacancy.

Mr. BUCHANAN: At the present time the man must be notified, but under the proposed alteration he need not be notified. I am the chairman of a highly-skilled union, and this kind of thing happens to us. A firm starts six pattern-makers and I have often said to a fellow, "Why are you not one of the six? I thought that you were a reasonable fellow to get in there; why are you not starting?" The man cannot give me an answer; he cannot prove anything; he
does not know. There might have been a private reason in the firm; the man might for some reason not have been suitable on the last occasion. The reason might be anything, but the man is not able to prove it.

Sir JOHN PYBUS: The officer must prove that the man has neglected to seek for work.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The officer has to prove that the man has neglected. How does the officer prove it? Let us take the case of eight pattern-makers for six jobs; two of them have not got started. The officer comes along and says, "Why are you two not started? Do you know locomotive work and live in the district?" They say "Yes," and the officer has proved his case, by saying that vacancies occurred at a certain place and it was reasonable to expect those two men to have started. The man has to disprove the presumption that he has now been started among the six, and it is an impossibility to disprove it. We say that this matter should be put back on its previous footing, with this alteration, that a definite offer of a job should be made.

7.9 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: Let me carry the point made by the hon. Member one step further and see what happens. I quite admit that when the eight pattern-makers apply for six jobs, two are bound not to get them. But let us assume, as happens occasionally, that the eight men on a Saturday night had all been together and knew perfectly well that a shop, which had been closed down for a fortnight, was going to start the following Monday. What happens? Instead of eight turning up, seven turn up and the eighth fellow does not take the trouble to leave his house and try to get the job. It is only in a case like that where the officer can prove that the man knew perfectly well on Saturday night that there was a chance of getting a job and that he might have been one of the six engaged, but that he never availed himself of the opportunity—it is only in that type of case that the conditions could possibly arise at all.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN: At a very early hour the Minister came in with a manuscript Amendment and destroyed one or two
Amendments which he had on the Paper. We are now asked to accept what is practically the manuscript Amendment which was moved by the Minister. We had an Amendment down before the manuscript Amendment to insert the words "definitely offered to him." I should imagine that the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary would not for a moment answer that he was willing to accept an Amendment to a manuscript Amendment that was only handed in to-day, as he would have given no consideration whatever to the subject. When I consider what this means, it is rather ambiguous. Let us examine the penalty:
if … it is proved by an officer of the Ministry of Labour that the claimant has neglected to avail himself of an opportunity of suitable employment.
The officer will, in my opinion, be both judge and jury; he will decide and he will make definite what, apparently, is indefinite. I am at a loss to understand why the Under-Secretary is not able to accept the latter portion of the proposed Amendment to his Amendment—"definitely offered to him." This makes quite clear to the Minister, without any ambiguity, the spirit underlying this Amendment. The Amendment says that it must be definitely offered. There are a thousand and one reasons on which officers can form an opinion. An indictment can be framed against a man, and he has no protection whatever. I should have imagined that, so far as English fairplay is concerned, when you bring an indictment against a man and a penalty is to be attached, at least he ought to be able to put up a plea or a defence. What protection has he unless the officer is able to say that the work was definitely offered to him? You are offering him no employment; he has to go with a thousand and one men to the docks. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company, or one of the big firms in Liverpool turn down 400, 500 or 600 men for a job at which they require only a few. At 7 o'clock they go down to wait, and one of the officers in one of the clearing-houses may say "This man did not turn up for a job." I should have thought if the Minister were going to describe this as a simple Amendment, that he would have put simple language in its place. It is ambiguous, and my opinion is that he wishes it to be ambiguous. He does not want a clear definition. The Amendment is as plain as a
pike-staff. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he has any time to listen to the discussion—I hope that I am not interrupting him—to realise that I am in earnest about this matter. [Interruption.] I am wondering whether the National party really want this matter to be made definite or not. In the Amendment of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) you have a definition, but the Minister of Labour, like all the rest of the Ministers, is not prepared to accept anything reasonable from the Opposition except under pressure from Members of his own party. [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member behind me will just keep quiet.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): The hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. Logan) is supposed to be addressing me, and if he will do so he will not be interrupted.

Mr. LOGAN: Interruptions should also be addressed to the Chair and not to the hon. Member who is speaking. I am not here to teach manners to those who ought to know better. I suggest that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Gorbals is one which the Minister might accept. What mandate has the Parliamentary Secretary for declaring that the Government are not willing to accept it? What authority has he for saying so? It is King's English, it is perfect, and it gives terminology to something which at the present moment is rather ambiguous. I suggest that the Government should accept it.

7.18 p.m.

Mr. JANNER: I am sorry to intervene again, but it is necessary for us to understand what the position is going to be. The Parliamentary Secretary let the "cat out of the bag" when he said that it was intended to pin down any man of whom it could be said that he ought to have known—this is what his speech meant—that there was a job available, although the job had been filled.

Mr. HUDSON: I must protest. I said nothing of the kind.

Mr. JANNER: The hon. Member referred to seven or eight people going after six jobs. Suppose you had a case where eight or nine people knew of six jobs that were available and that they agreed between themselves that the first
six should apply—these six may have been out of employment longest—and that if the positions were not obtained by the first six, then the others should apply for them. That is one side of the picture, but there is another side. Suppose there were 400 or 500 people unemployed in a particular district and there was some work suitable for all of those 400 or 500. Is it not logical to say that it would be the duty of the officer to make every single one of those 400 or 500 for whom a job was suitable give a reason why he had not applied for the job which was available? The proposal of the Government places the onus upon the whole of these men. It not only makes the officer himself demand from all of these men an explanation, but pushes the onus of proof from the officer on to the men themselves.

Mr. CAPORN: Does the hon. Member seriously suggest that any tribunal under such conditions would say that the whole of the 500 men had been guilty of negligence? He knows the definition of negligence; doing something which a reasonable man would not do, or abstaining from doing something which a reasonable man would do.

Mr. JANNER: I am surprised that the hon. Member as a lawyer should ask such a question without knowing that the answer is that the onus would be placed on each man to prove that he had made an application for the position, whether he got it or not. If it does not mean that I should like to know what it does mean. It means clearly that a man who knows of a job, or who is in a position to have known of a job, and does not apply, must answer to the officer as to why he did not apply. Consequently, he is thrown under the same conditions as he would have been if the whole of the original Clause had been left in the Bill.
I take an entirely different view from that put forward by the Government. We are dealing with two sets of men, the exchange officer and the person who applies for relief. They are both human beings. In the Employment Exchange in my own division, Stepney, there have been no complaints of misunderstanding to my knowledge between the people on different sides of the counter, and in my view it is not fair to the man who is on the one side or on the other of the
counter to introduce something which makes a difference between them, or which creates a difficulty between them which is almost insurmountable. That is what would be done by the Bill unless you add the words suggested by the hon. Member for Gorbals. And why not? Employment Exchanges are there for the purpose of finding work, and each year employers are coming more and more to the exchanges to get their demands met. Why should we not encourage this rather than create fresh difficulties? If the proposed words are accepted they will merely mean that before you can accuse a person of having committed an offence you have to show that there was an opportunity for him to go to a job and that he had not been sent on a futile errand to a job that had been filled. I repeat that under the Bill every man out of the 600 who did not apply for the job would be answerable for not having applied although there was only one to be filled.

7.24 p.m.

Mr. MARTIN: In my view the words proposed by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) go further than the arguments he put forward. What I think he means is that there should be proper notification. Earlier in the Debate I suggested such notification. To say that the Employment Exchange should definitely offer a job to a man is unreasonable, but if the Amendment suggested notification in writing or verbally, I think it would be on a more reasonable basis. I would, therefore, suggest that the words "definitely offered" should be deleted and that the words "duly notified by the authority" should be substituted.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. PRICE: I support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) to the proposed Amendment. It is about time that the Employment Exchanges carried out the duties for which they were formed; and the Amendment would at least allow them to do the work for which they were established. I should like to know also how this legislation will apply to miners if the proposed Amendment is refused. The Parliamentary Secretary says that if there are six jobs offered for carpenters and only six out of eight unemployed carpenters apply, that the two who do not apply may have their money stopped. Suppose there is an advertisement in the Press that 20
miners are wanted in the County of Derbyshire. There may be 3,000 miners in Yorkshire signing on at the Employment Exchange. Does the Parliamentary Secretary contend that the 3,000 miners in Yorkshire are to go to Derbyshire to seek for jobs when only 20 men are needed? It makes the thing absolutely ridiculous. If Employment Exchanges carry out their duties the men who are needed can be sent to the jobs, and it is time to stop a man's pay when he has refused a job that has been offered him. These proposals will put men in a far worse position than they were before and I appeal to the Government to accept the Amendment, and put the obligation on the Minister of Labour. We do not want men trailing all over the country without

the slightest chance of getting employment.

7.29 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: I want to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that we are supposed to be discussing the Amendments on the Order Paper and that we have been talking now for nearly four hours and have not touched one single Amendment. I ask the Government whether they really mean to persist in a guillotine which is capable of doing business in that way?

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 70; Noes, 307.

Division No. 77.]
AYES.
[7.30 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Mainwaring, William Henry


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Attlee, Clement Richard
Groves, Thomas E.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Banfield, John William
Grundy, Thomas W.
Maxton, James


Batey, Joseph
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Milner, Major James


Bernays, Robert
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Owen, Major Goronwy


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Harris, Sir Percy
Paling, Wilfred


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Healy, Cahir
Parkinson, John Allen


Cape, Thomas
Holdsworth, Herbert
Price, Gabriel


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Janner, Barnett
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cove, William G.
Jenkins, Sir William
Rea, Walter Russell


Cripps, Sir Stafford
John, William
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Curry, A. C.
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Daggar, George
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Thorns, William James


Dobbie, William
Kirkwood, David
Tinker, John Joseph


Edwards, Charles
Lawson, John James
Wallhead, Richard C.


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Leonard, William
White, Henry Graham


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Wood, Sir Murdoch Mckenzie (Banff)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lunn, William
Young, Ernest J. (Middiesbrough, E.)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
McEntee, Valentine L.



Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Buchanan and Mr. G. Macdonald


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E.R.)
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Colfox, Major William Phllip


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Brass, Captain Sir William
Conant, R. J. E.


Albery, Irving James
Broadbent, Colonel John
Cook, Thomas A.


Alexander, Sir William
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Cooke, Douglas


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Cooper, A. Duff


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Browne, Captain A. C.
Copeland, Ida


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Crooke, J. Smedley


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Burghley, Lord
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Burnett, John George
Croom-Johnson, R. P.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Crossley, A. C.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Culverwell, Cyril Tom


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Dalkeith, Earl of


Balniel, Lord
Camphell-Johnston, Malcolm
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Cassels, James Dale
Denville, Alfred


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Castlereagh, Viscount
Donner, P. W.


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Doran, Edward


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Dower, Captain A. V. G.


Blindell, James
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Drews, Cedric


Borodale, Viscount
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel


Boulton, W. W.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Duggan, Hubert John


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Eady, George H.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Clarke, Frank
Eden, Robert Anthony


Bracken, Brendan
Clarry, Reginald George
Edge, Sir William


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Mabane, William
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Elmley, Viscount
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Salt, Edward W.


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
McKie, John Hamilton
Savery, Samuel Servington


Everard, W. Lindsay
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Selley, Harry R.


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Fox, Sir Gifford
Magnay, Thomas
Shaw, Helen S. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Maitland, Adam
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Shute, Colonel J. J.


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Gibson, Charles Granville
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Gledhill, Gilbert
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Meller, Sir Richard James
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Goff, Sir Park
Milne, Charles
Soper, Richard


Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Granville, Edgar
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Graves, Marjorie
Moreing, Adrian C.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Morgan, Robert H.
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Greene, William P. C.
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Spens, William Patrick


Grimston, R. V.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Morrison, William Shepherd
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Moss, Captain H. J.
Stevenson, James


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Munro, Patrick
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Storey, Samuel


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Strauss, Edward A.


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
North, Edward T.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Harbord, Arthur
Nunn, William
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
O'Connor, Terence James
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Palmer, Francis Noel
Tate, Mavis Constance


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Patrick, Colin M.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Peake, Captain Osbert
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Hepworth, Joseph
Pearson, William G.
Thompson, Sir Luke


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Peat, Charles U.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Hornby, Frank
Petherick, M.
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Horsbrugh, Florence
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Todd. A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bliston)
Train, John


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Tree, Ronald


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Pike, Cecil F.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Pybus, Sir Percy John
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Jamieson, Douglas
Radford, E. A.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Rankin, Robert
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.


Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Ratcliffe, Arthur
Wells, Sydney Richard


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Knight, Holford
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Knox, Sir Alfred
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Remer, John R.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Law, Sir Alfred
Rickards, George William
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Leckie, J. A.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Ross, Ronald D.
Withers, Sir John James


Liddall, Walter S.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.



Llewellin, Major John J.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd, Gr'n)
Runge, Norah Cecil
Sir George Penny and Mr. Womersley.

It being after Half-past Seven of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 19th December, successively to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the
business to be concluded at Half-past Seven of the Clock at this day's sitting.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 312; Noes, 72.

Division No. 78.]
AYES.
[7.43 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
McKie, John Hamilton


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Albery, Irving James
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander


Alexander, Sir William
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Magnay, Thomas


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Maitland, Adam


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Fleming, Edward Lascelies
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Fox, Sir Gifford
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Meller, Sir Richard James


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gibson, Charles Granville
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Milne, Charles


Balniel, Lord
Gledhill, Gilbert
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Goff, Sir Park
Moreing, Adrian C.


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rf'd, N.)
Morgan, Robert H.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Granville, Edgar
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)


Blindell, James
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Morrison, William Shephard


Borodale, Viscount
Graves, Marjorie
Moss, Captain H. J.


Boulton, W. W.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Munro, Patrick


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Greene, William P. C.
Nall, Sir Joseph


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Grimston, R. V.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Bracken, Brendan
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
North, Edward T.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nunn, William


Brass, Captain Sir William
Guy, J. C. Morrison
O'Connor, Terence James


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Palmer, Francis Noel


Browne, Captain A. C.
Harbord, Arthur
Patrick, Colin M.


Buchan-Hepburn. P. G. T.
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Peake, Captain Osbert


Burghley, Lord
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Pearson, William G.


Burnett, John George
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Peat, Charles U.


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Penny, Sir George


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Hepworth, Joseph
Petherick, M.


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bliston)


Cassels, James Dale
Hornby, Frank
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada


Castlereagh, Viscount
Horobin, Ian M.
Pike, Cecil F.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Pybus, Sir Percy John


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Radford, E. A.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Clarke, Frank
Jamleson, Douglas
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Clarry, Reginald George
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Rankin, Robert


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Ratcliffe, Arthur


Colfox, Major William Philip
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Conant, R. J. E.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Cook, Thomas A.
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-


Cooke, Douglas
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Cooper, A. Duff
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Copeland, Ida
Knight, Holford
Remer, John R.


Crooke, J. Smedley
Knox, Sir Alfred
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Rickards, George William


Crossley, A. C.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Ropner, Colonel L.


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Law, Sir Alfred
Ross, Ronald D.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Leckie, J. A.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lees-Jones, John
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Denville, Alfred
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Runge, Norah Cecil


Donner, P. W.
Liddall, Walter S.
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Doran, Edward
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Llewellin, Major John J.
Russell, Hamer Field (Shef'ld, B'tside)


Drewe, Cedric
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd, Gr'n)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Duggan, Hubert John
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Salt, Edward W.


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Eady, George H.
Mabane, William
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Eden, Robert Anthony
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Edge, Sir William
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Savery, Samuel Servington


Edmondson, Major A. J.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Selley, Harry R.


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Elmley, Viscount
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)




Shute, Colonel J. J.
Strauss, Edward A.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour


Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Sutcliffe, Harold
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Tate, Mavis Constance
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Soper, Richard
Thompson, Sir Luke
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Thorp, Linton Theodore
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Spens, William Patrick
Train, John
Withers, Sir John James


Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Tree, Ronald
Womersley, Walter James


Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)


Stevenson, James
Turton, Robert Hugh



Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Storey, Samuel
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
Sir Victor Warrender and Lord Erskine.


Stourton, Hon. John J.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)





NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Mainwaring, William Henry


Aske, Sir Robert William
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grundy, Thomas W.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Banfield, John William
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maxton, James


Batey, Joseph
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Ztl'nd)
Milner, Major James


Bernays, Robert
Harris, Sir Percy
Nathan, Major H. L.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Healy, Cahir
Paling, Wilfred


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Holdsworth, Herbert
Parkinson, John Allen


Buchanan, George
Janner, Barnett
Price, Gabriel


Cape, Thomas
Jenkins, Sir William
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
John, William
Rea, Walter Russell


Cove, William G.
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Curry, A. C.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Daggar, George
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Kirkwood, David
Thorne, William James


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Dobbie, William
Leonard, William
Wallhead, Richard C.


Edwards, Charles
Lindsay, Kenneth Martin (Kilm'rnock)
White, Henry Graham


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Lunn, William
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. Groves.

CLAUSE 7.—(Amendments as to fifth Statutory Condition.)

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 315; Noes, 67.

Division No. 79.]
AYES.
[7.54 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric


Albery, Irving James
Bracken, Brendan
Clarke, Frank


Alexander, Sir William
Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Clarry, Reginald George


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Brass, Captain Sir William
Colfox, Major William Philip


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Broadbent, Colonel John
Conant, R. J. E.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Cook, Thomas A.


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Cooke, Douglas


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Browne, Captain A. C.
Cooper, A. Duff


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Copeland, Ida


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Burghley, Lord
Crooke, J. Smedley


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Burnett, John George
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Croom-Johnson, R. P.


Balniel, Lord
Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Crossley, A. C.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Culverwell, Cyril Tom


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Dalkeith, Earl of


Bernays, Robert
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Cassels, James Dale
Davies. Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Castlereagh, Viscount
Denville, Alfred


Blindell, James
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Donner, P. W.


Borodale, Viscount
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Dower, Captain A. V. G.


Boulton, W. W.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Drewe, Cedric


Duggan, Hubert John
Liddall, Walter S.
Ross, Ronald D.


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Lindsay, Kenneth Martin (Kilm'rnock)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Eady, George H.
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Eden, Robert Anthony
Llewellin, Major John J.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Edge, Sir William
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd, G'n)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Elmley, Viscount
Mabane, William
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Salt, Edward W.


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
McCorquodale, M. S.
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Savery, Samuel Servington


Everard, W. Lindsay
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Selley, Harry R.


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
McKie, John Hamilton
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Fleming, Edward Lascelies
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Fox, Sir Gifford
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Shute, Colonel J. J.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Magnay, Thomas
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Gibson, Charles Granville
Maitland, Adam
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Gledhill, Gilbert
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Goff, Sir Park
Martin, Thomas B.
Soper, Richard


Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Granville, Edgar
Meller, Sir Richard James
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Graves, Marjorie
Milne, Charles
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Greene, William P. C.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Spens, William Patrick


Grimston, R. V.
Moreing, Adrian C.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Morgan, Robert H.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Stevenson, James


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Morrison, William Shephard
Storey, Samuel


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Moss, Captain H. J.
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Munro, Patrick
Strauss, Edward A.


Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
Nall, Sir Joseph
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hanbury, Cecil
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Harbord, Arthur
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenn'gt'n)
North, Edward T.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Nunn, William
Tate, Mavis Constance


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
O'Connor, Terence James
Thomas, James P L. (Hereford)


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Thompson, Sir Luke


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G.A.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Hepworth, Joseph
Palmer, Francis Noel
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Patrick, Colin M.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Peaks, Captain Osbert
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Pearson, William G.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Hornby, Frank
Peat, Charles U.
Train, John


Horobin, Ian M.
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Tree, Ronald


Horsbrugh, Florence
Petherick, M.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Pike, Cecil F.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Jamieson, Douglas
Pybus, Sir Percy John
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Radford, E. A.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Rankin, Robert
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Knight, Holford
Ratcliffe, Arthur
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Knox, Sir Alfred
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Law, Sir Alfred
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Leckie, J. A.
Remer, John R.
Withers, Sir John James


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)


Lees-Jones, John
Rickards, George William



Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Ropner, Colonel L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Levy, Thomas
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Sir George Penny and Mr. Womersley.




NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grundy, Thomas W.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Banffield, John William
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maxton, James


Batey, Joseph
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Milner, Major James


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Harris, Sir Percy
Owen, Major Goronwy


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Healy, Cahir
Paling, Wilfred


Buchanan, George
Holdsworth, Herbert
Parkinson, John Allen


Cape, Thomas
Janner, Barnett
Price, Gabriel


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jenkins, Sir William
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cove, William G.
John, William
Rea, Walter Russell


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Curry, A. C.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merloneth)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Daggar, George
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kirkwood, David
Thorne, William James


Dobbie, William
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Edwards, Charles
Leonard, William
Wallhead, Richard C.


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Logan, David Gilbert
White, Henry Graham


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Lunn, William
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
McEntee, Valentine L.
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)



Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W).
Mainwaring, William Henry
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. D. Graham and Mr. Groves.


Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 8.—(Period of disallowance of benefit in certain cases.)

8.3 p.m.

Sir H. BETTERTON: I beg to move, in page 7, line 8, to leave out from the beginning to "that," in line 11.
This, of course, is consequential on the Amendment which we passed this afternoon, when we struck out the paragraph with regard to obtaining suitable employment and substituted another form of words. It follows, therefore, that this paragraph becomes meaningless.

8.4 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: We agree that this is consequential, but I would like to ask the Minister when we are really going to start business. This is another manuscript Amendment, and we have not yet got to the Amendments on the Paper. I put a point before the last Division was taken, and the Minister promised some consideration on the Report stage, but as a result of the Government's action, and not of any action of an obstructing Member, we have not yet reached the Amendments on the Paper. I would therefore like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he cannot reconsider, not when we come to the Report stage, but sometime during this week, this Guillotine arrangement.

Sir H. BETTERTON: The hon. Member knows that I can only give the same answer as my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council gave this afternoon. That is exactly the question that was put at Question Time to-day, and I cannot go beyond that answer.

Mr. LAWSON: Except that when the Lord President of the Council spoke this afternoon, he was not fully informed of what occurred yesterday, and I am sure he could not have anticipated what was going to happen to-day. Indeed, not a single hon. Member had the slightest idea that we should sit for half a day without discussing anything on the Paper. The right hon. Gentleman has a sense of fairness to the House, and in view of this experience and of the reflection, in reference to Parliamentary procedure generally, that he has to keep the high standard for which this House has been noted, I think he really should review the Guillotine arrangements.

Amendment agreed to.

8.8 p.m.

Sir H. BETTERTON: I beg to move, in page 7, line 12, after "Act," to insert "or under section four of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1930."

This is also consequential on the Amendment passed this afternoon.

Amendment agreed to.

8.9 p.m.

Mr. A. BEVAN: I beg to move, in page 7, line 19, to leave out from "determined" to the end of the Clause.
If hon. Members will refer to the Bill, they will see that the purpose of the Amendment is to prohibit the Government from giving to the courts of referees and to the umpire power to add to the disqualification for six weeks a disqualification for six months if the same offence is committed a second time
within a benefit year. That is the short and clear point which is made by the Amendment, but clear and short though the point is, it raises matters of the greatest possible importance to unemployed men. Indeed, the more this Bill comes to be examined in Committee, the more it appears to be the child, not of the National Government, but of the Federation of British Industries. We have been discussing all the evening an Amendment the purpose of which was to make the unemployed man spend more time at the factory gates and less time at the Employment Exchange, because his presence at the factory gates would suit the employer's purpose much better than the segregation of the unemployed at the Employment Exchange. That was the whole purpose of this new whip that the last Clause put in the hands of the Government. The purpose of this Clause is to hold a sword of Damocles over the head of every workman in Great Britain and also over the men who are out of work, because the effect of it is to say to the workman that if he has a disagreement with his employer and so has six weeks' benefit withheld from him, and then has a second disagreement with his employer in the same benefit year, he shall lose his title to all unemployment insurance. He falls out of the insurable category entirely and goes straight on to unemployment assistance.
If these powers are given to industry, they will have the effect of withholding from a British workman the independence of spirit which he is entitled to have in his employment. I have attended at very many courts of referees and before the umpire representing men who claimed benefit after having been dismissed for alleged misconduct. I do not know what the experience of most of my hon. Friends has been, but I always found it frightfully difficult to prove that the employer was wrong. The courts seemed to start off with the assumption that if a man lost his work, he lost it as a general rule because of his own fault. For example, the employer was rarely present at the court of referees. He might be summoned on a special occasion, but he was very rarely there and could not therefore be cross-examined. He made his statement upon an inadequate form; and remember that the employer is making his statement concerning a man with whom he has quarrelled, and in such
circumstances he is not likely to make a statement favourable to the man. But if the man has a disagreement and finds that his employer is an intolerable person, if the personal relationship which is set up between them makes it impossible for him to remain in that employment and he leaves, he is subject now to disqualification of benefit for six weeks, but if he does it a second time, if he is a man of independent spirit who stands up against his employer, if he is in the mind of the employer a disagreeable person, along comes the State and says, "For the second offence we are going to punish you by withholding your benefit for six months."
The purpose of this Clause is to make Englishmen into sheep. The Minister laughs, but really, unless Members of Parliament give consideration to these problems either with practical experience or with a sense of imaginative pity, they will never understand what will happen. Hon. Members must realise the position of a workman. A workman is perfectly entitled to have independence of spirit and to be self-reliant. He might indeed be an active trade unionist, and the function of this Clause is to weed out all the active trade unionists from industry. As I said at the beginning, the Clause was inspired by the Federation of British Industries. Hon. Members will recall that a few years ago the Federation of British Industries sent out a series of interesting pamphlets in which they pointed out how the manner in which the unemployment insurance scheme was being administered left what they described as a too great rigidity in the wages system of this country. That was the elaborate phrase they used, and it was repeated in this House by the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), and it has been used on many occasions by people who wanted to use ambiguity of language in order to conceal their real intentions. The Federation meant that it was so easy for a man to obtain unemployment insurance benefit and the disqualifying conditions were so lax that the existence of unemployment did not bring the old pressure to bear upon wage standards; men were able to resist reductions of wages and were able to build up their trade union machinery much better because the State had taken away the old lever of unemployment from the hands of the employers.
The purpose of the last Clause that we discussed and of this Clause is to force the pressure of unemployment on to the employed man to enable the employer more easily to obtain reductions in the standard of living. That may not be the intention of the Minister, but we have come to believe that Bills that come before this House are sometimes much more the production of the Department than of the Minister and that the Department is under the influence of extraneous bodies. I am satisfied that if this Clause goes through it will have the effect, as I have described, of withholding from an employed person unemployment benefit if he happens to be a man of independent spirit who has disagreements with his employer. What was said by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) earlier in the evening is now being italicised by the portion of the Clause which we want to amend. He pointed out that if a man under the Amendment which we have accepted failed to apply for employment, he would be disqualified for six weeks. If he failed to apply on two occasions, he would be disqualified for six months. I put it to hon. Gentlemen that six months' disqualification for unemployment benefit is a most savage sentence.
I cannot understand how hon. Members can square legislation of this kind with the pretentions that we hear on numerous occasions that Conservatives think as much of the unemployed as Labour Members. We have heard it so often, but it is simply mealy-mouthed hypocrisy. Six weeks' disqualification has been considered by many Employment Exchange officials and by many employers of labour to be a very inadequate punishment. They say that if a man leaves his work he merely has a disqualification of six weeks, and he is certain to have his benefit at the end of it. Consequently, many men want only to throw up their work. As has been pointed out on a number of occasions, the actuarial effects of this are negligible, because, provided there are more men for jobs than jobs for men, the refusal of one man to accept a job or the fact that a man throws up a job simply means that there is a vacancy for somebody else. Therefore, the actuarial consequences of retaining the
existing law are negligible, and the gains from including this Clause are nil. The gain is not financial; it is psychological, and the gain is on the part of the employer, and the loss is on the part of the unemployed man. The employer gains by a greater psychological hold on the employed man. He gains because you impose heavier hardships for disagreements with the employer. This Clause will create among the employed people a deeper sense of fear of the heaviest punishment for differences of opinion with the employer. It is also, of course, an attempt to spread a greater degree of terror and uncertainty, because, if men are disallowed benefit on two occasions for not having sought work, they will lose their benefit for six months.
This is a simple point, but it is important. The Minister will have to have a very good reason for including this provision in the Bill. All the things which he is putting into this part of the Bill take away all the sugar which the Chancellor of the Exchequer put on the pill. You have extended the insurable period, and thereby claim that this Bill is humane. You now include in this part of the Bill so many additional disabilities that you take away all the advantages of that increased period of benefit. I want to ask the Minister when he makes his reply to have some regard to what is happening in Great Britain. Employers have already the most powerful means of coercion over their employés. The country is suffering seriously from the failure of the working-classes to resist the downward pressure of wage standards. The home market is being seriously depleted by the failure of the trade unions in circumstances of economic depression to perform their usual function of maintaining and raising wage levels. If you put into the hands of the employing class keener, stronger and more terrible weapons to use against those with initiative and courage, you will pay the price for it in ways that are perhaps intangible, but, even though they may be intangible, they will have the gravest consequences for this country.
Therefore, I ask the Minister to leave the punishments as they are already. The fact of unemployment is punishment enough, and the right hon. Gentleman has not very much respect for his fellow
countrymen if he thinks that men do indeed throw up their work for such wanton reasons that he must punish them in addition to the punishment of being idle. I ask him to have a little more respect for his fellow countrymen and not consider them as though they were all work-shy and pariahs and undesirable people who have to be whipped into employment. Everybody knows that whenever any job is available thousands of men apply for it. To put in a Bill a Clause which has behind it the assumption that unemployment is in itself an inadequate punishment, and that the withholding of benefits must be an added penalty, is to have a very low opinion of one's fellow countrymen. I ask the Minister to withdraw the Clause, and to do so at once, because if this goes out to the country it will make it very difficult for supporters of the National Government to answer the questions they will be asked at unemployed meetings. The Clause says, in effect, "Unemployment is too slight a thing for you to bear, and we must add to your burdens that of increasing poverty."

8.26 p.m.

Mr. MACMILLAN: There have been occasions during the proceedings on this Bill when, unfortunately, perhaps, from my point of view, I have not found it possible to agree with the view put forward by His Majesty's Government, and therefore I venture to say at once that this is not one of those occasions. I find myself quite unmoved by the speech just delivered by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan). I am very grateful to him for his tender solicitude as to the difficulties which supporters of the National Government may have in answering questions at meetings, but I am bound to say that if hon. Members had not got the Bill before them they would not have known, while he was speaking, that he was referring to the penalty for a second offence within a period of 12 months. Had this additional punishment been imposed for a second offence at any time during a man's term of insurance, it might have been regarded as a harsh, or an unduly harsh, punishment; but I think the words which show that this is an additional penalty imposed only when the offence is committed twice within a period of 12 months do very much alter the circumstances,
and in my opinion wholly justify the change which the Minister is proposing.
It is very unfair and is, indeed, an argument quite unrelated to the facts, to talk about the average man in this connection. These penalties are not directed against the average man. We know that the average man is not "work shy," but only too anxious to find employment. No system of penalties is directed against the average man who keeps the law, but only against the few who do not find themselves willing or able to observe it. I have no doubt the Minister will be able to give us much more detailed reasons for his proposal, but I am bound to say that on this point I do not find myself in agreement with those who are objecting to the Bill. I rise only to ask one question, the answer to which I ought, perhaps, to know, though I think a good many hon. Members will be interested if the Minister will give us a reply. I would like to know what happens to individuals who are disqualified under this or similar Clauses. Do they come under Part II automatically? Do they come under the review of the board, or do they fall to be dealt with by public assistance committees? Is the penalty simply that they are transferred from Statutory Benefit to the consideration of the board under Part II, or are they ruled out of Part II? It may be my fault that I do not know the answer, but I do not find in the Bill any clear explanation. Perhaps if I had read it with more attention I should have found out.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: I do not follow the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) in all the reasons he gave for moving his Amendment, and I do not see in this proposal a great industrial plot, but I do think that the part of the Clause to which he objects contains something to which very great exception could be taken, and I shall certainly support his Amendment. I am not impressed, as I say, by the motives which he seems to see behind this proposal, but I was impressed, because I know from my own knowledge, by his references to the way in which these tribunals must necessarily act. We all know that they cannot be conducted with more than a certain amount of formality, because so very much has to be done in a short time. It
is so often the case that they have before them only a few bald lines written by the employer, merely a statement of the offence and little more, and there is the unemployed man saying rather too much and not saying it very skilfully—pouring it out to the tribunal, who come to the conclusion that they cannot accept all this. They feel that if they put down all those statements they probably would be upset on appeal. So, in consequence, it is not a trial. If we are to pass this penal section, making the consequences to the unemployed man so very much worse, I should want the whole routine of these investigations to be very different, with very much more formal evidence, in order to ensure that injustice is not done.
Let us look at the reasons which can be given for disqualifying a man, and remember that if it occurs twice within 12 months it will mean for that man disqualification for six months. There is the reason "voluntarily leaving work." I know of a case recently in which what the man actually did was to leave his work because he was ill. Doctors certified that he was ill; there was no question about it. His offence was that he had not rung up his employer on the telephone and told him so. I dare say he ought to have done it, but it is the sort of thing which an ignorant man might omit to do. It is very easy to miss doing it. I am informed, and I accept the fact, that the umpire has decided that on evidence of that kind a man can be adjudged to have left his employment without just cause. That shows how trivial an offence, if twice repeated, may bring a large and terrible penalty. Therefore, I urge the Minister not to give his Bill a bad taste in everybody's mouth by letting it go out with this penal flavour. I am sure that he wishes well of his Bill, and thinks highly of it—and I wish I did so—but at the same time I do not wish to see it involved in unmerited unpopularity as the result of Clauses, or parts of Clauses, which are not really an essential part of it, on which it does not depend and which appear to be so many annoying extras put in, one might say, for the purpose of making it look as grim and forbidding as can possibly be imagined. I beg the Minister to consider whether this is worth
while, whether anything he can gain by terrorising a few people who, I dare say, deserve it, is worth the great risk of doing an injustice to other people who do not deserve it. I am bound to give my vote against increasing penalties of this kind in a way which, I am sure, is going to create a very bad impression about this legislation.

8.34 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I wish to give two or three reasons why this new proposal should not be adopted. First of all, I cannot find in the recommendations of the Royal Commission any suggestion about this six months' period, nor, in the evidence before the Commission, can I find anything to back up this change. I do not want to go over ground that we have already covered, but if the matter remains as it is, after the alteration made by the Minister in regard to disqualification, a man will be disqualified if officials of the Ministry of Labour can prove that he has been unable to get a job. That is the effect of the change.
What is the position? A man is disqualified for six weeks. The week after the six weeks have expired he can be brought back upon the same charge and disqualified for six months. At the end of the six months, he can, in another week, be taken up and disqualified for another six months. At the end of those six months, and in another week or two, he can be disqualified for a further six months. That point has not been brought out. Once a man has been convicted—that is what it means—he is disqualified, because it is alleged by the officials of the Ministry of Labour that he is unable to get a job. The man can be disqualified for six months for a second offence. I take an analogy from the old not-genuinely-seeking-work position. What happened there? Because of what was called "not a reasonable period of work within two years," a man, at the end of six weeks, was told by the Ministry officials, "We will not allow you back on to benefit, because you have to prove that you are not unable to get a job again." Then he could be disqualified for six months.
Please note that once a man has had that six months' disqualification placed upon him, the effect, as I read the Bill, will be that of 18 months, because his year starts from the end of his six
months' disqualification. There is the power to repeat and to repeat this sentence. It is really a punishment and is far too severe. Take the question of misconduct. The common offence is misconduct, and in regard to the six weeks' or the six months' sentence, the minimum tends to become the maximum. Six months for a second offence is, I think, a terrible punishment. I know that a man will become chargeable under Part II, but he is not likely to get benefit when it has been refused under Part I. His wife and children will, I assume, get benefit under Part II, but he, whose claim is to standard benefit, is, I expect, to be put into the workhouse. If not, he will have to live off his wife and family. If he goes in to the workhouse, it becomes more and more difficult for the man, who has a good standard benefit claim, to get back into work. If he does not go into the workhouse, he becomes a drag upon his wife and family.
I trust that in this matter the Minister will see his way to cut down considerably the provision relating to the six weeks. For anybody who has committed misconduct, six weeks is a terrible punishment and does not cure the offender. Six months or six years will not cure him. In any case, when you are dealing with standard benefit claims, to impose a punishment of six months is a hideous sentence, and I trust that the Minister will reconsider the matter.

8.41 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES BROWN: An hon. Member expressed the view that many of us on these benches are suspicious in regard to this Bill. Some of us feel, as the Debate goes on, that our worst fears will be realised, should the Bill reach the Statute Book in anything like its present form. The Minister has told us that in his view it is a great piece of social legislation. It will be judged finally, of course, by the unemployed people themselves. In regard to the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan), we have very grave doubts as to how the matter will work out in practice, and I want to give one illustration from my own experience of how this Clause may have disastrous effects upon certain types of workers.
In my area we not only have coal mining, but the hosiery industry as well. We have some doubling mills. The fine-
ness or coarseness of yarn is, as most hon. Members well know, talked of in terms of "counts." Suppose you have count 100 and count 120; you cannot detect the difference between those two counts either by touch or by sight. Here is the case of some girls who came within my knowledge quite recently. They were working in a doubling mill, and were handling those fine counts. Accidentally one girl mixes the counts. She is dismissed. The Employment Exchange wants to know from the employer why she is dismissed, and the employer puts on the form the word "misconduct." Because of that misconduct, the girl's benefit is suspended for six weeks. She did a very simple thing that any girl might do quite accidentally, and yet under this Clause, as I understand it—if I am wrong I hope that the Minister will correct me—if a girl did that twice in one year, she would lose six months' benefit for the second offence. Surely that is a form of punishment that ought never to be imposed for such trivial offences.
It may be that the employers suffer some inconvenience and loss; I will grant that. If this Bill is intended to help the unemployed, and if it is really a great piece of social legislation, why should penal Clauses of this kind, that will operate in many cases disastrously upon a large number of workers, be included in it? I have always thought that the humanitarian factor, as it is called, has played quite a minor part in the building up of the unemployment insurance system. The real reason, of course, all the time has been to maintain the social peace. We on these benches, as we review these Clauses in Committee stage, are driven more and more to the conclusion that the Government are just trying out what degree of pressure can be brought to bear upon the unemployed without causing a great uprising of the unemployed. That is the real significance of the penal Clauses that they seek to impose. I ask the Minister to tell us if it is possible under this Clause for girls to be punished in the way that I have described.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. MAINWARING: There are two points that I should like to put from my experience in connection with disqualifications. In the first place, I do not
know whether there are in the Department records of the thousands of cases in which during the last few years benefit has been disallowed to miners in South Wales on the alleged ground of negligence or misconduct, but, if such records exist, I am sure that, if these thousands of cases were investigated, it would be found that in the vast majority of them the local courts of referees have been so suspicious of the charge made by the employer that they would impose upon the man merely a nominal disqualification for one week, or even only three days, instead of a possible six weeks. This Clause means that those thousands of cases which the local courts of referees think so small would take effect as if the most heinous crime had been committed against the employer.
There is another and graver point. I would ask the Minister to take his mind back to 1926, the year of the great upheaval in the mining industry. The miners hold that the stoppage of work in that year was enforced upon them by the employers; they have never regarded the events of 1926 as a strike, but as a lock-out. When miners claimed benefit then, a decision was registered against them. In the event of any similar situation arising again, and of any body of trade unionists in similar circumstances claiming benefit and its being disallowed, that would be held against them, and would prevent any of them from having benefit for six months. That is the astounding thing that might happen under the operation of this Clause. It seems to me that very little consideration has been given to the possible extensions of the application of the Clause, and, therefore, I think that, if the Minister will be good enough to consider these practical difficulties, his good sense will surely indicate that the best thing to do would be to withdraw the Clause, as has been suggested.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. T. SMITH: One of the most remarkable things about the progress of this Bill is the entire absence of any definite statement from the Minister of Labour. Here we have a very important Bill, the Clauses of which we view with great suspicion, and which is going to have a detrimental effect on the unemployed, but we get no word of explana-
tion from the Minister as to why these provisions have been put into the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for East Rhondda (Mr. Mainwaring) is bound to be suspicious of a Clause like this when he remembers his own experience in the mining industry. We who have had experience in the mining industry know that the general disqualification in connection with trade disputes has been used by unscrupulous employers to force down wages. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the records of the Ministry of Labour will show that employers have even written to the Ministry asking that officers should be sent down to certain localities to tell the workmen that, if they did not accept the employers' terms, they would be thrown out of work and disqualified under the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Having in mind that experience of the general disqualification, we are very suspicious of this Sub-section, and would like to know why it has been necessary to put it into the Bill. It has been my fortunate, or unfortunate, lot to have to represent many individuals at courts of referees, and on many occasions I have had to defend the cases of men who have been discharged on alleged grounds of misconduct. What does that misconduct usually consist of? The man may have been told to get off the firm simply because he has sent what may be regarded as an abnormal quantity of dirt out of the pit in a tub. We have had to argue the merits of such cases, sometimes for hours, and, when the man's benefit has been disallowed and he has been disqualified for six weeks, it has been a terrible hardship upon him. Here is a provision which says that, if such a man comes twice with the same disqualification within 12 months, he can be disqualified, not for six weeks, but for six months.
I have taken the opportunity during the Recess of addressing a number of meetings up and down the country on this Bill, and I have endeavoured to explain to the best of my ability what certain of its Clauses mean. I have put the provision which we are now discussing before meetings of employed workers and before meetings of unemployed workers, and everybody to whom it has been explained believes that there is something sinister behind it. Why is it
necessary to have it in the Bill? It is a tremendous weapon. Take the case of a man who is disqualified once, say for misconduct, and whose foreman or deputy, not being too kindly disposed towards him, says to him, "Unless you do so-and-so, out you go, and you know what that means." That fear is real. Again, it must be remembered that scores of cases are tried by courts of referees where the individual has no one to represent him, is almost entirely ignorant of the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Acts, and is certainly at a disadvantage when he is up against a trained lawyer who happens to be in the chair. Therefore, we are bound to oppose this provision, and I hope we shall oppose it as strongly as we can. My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) made some very strong statements. I listened to them very carefully, and I am bound to say that his statements and the fears that he expressed are, in my opinion, justified. Therefore, we must protest against this Sub-section, and do our best to get it withdrawn.
I must also protest against the attitude of the Minister of Labour in not explaining why these changes have been necessary in unemployment insurance law. The Parliamentary Secretary nods his head. If I may say so, he is one of the nicest of individuals fox dealing with a very complicated and very distasteful Bill. I was rather surprised this afternoon when he expressed doubt as to whether we should believe him when he read a certain Section. However much we may differ from him, we can trust him to quote the Statute correctly. Earlier in the evening he said, in trying to justify a Clause in the Bill, that the Government must have some regard to what the Royal Commission found in their examination of the problem, but we should like to know why it has been necessary to put in this penal Clause, and what evidence, if any, was brought before the Commission to justify a Clause of this character. What is intended by it? Is it intended to be a kind of punishment to those who have committed misconduct once or is it intended to be a deterrent to the ordinary man in employment not to commit the same offence time and time again? The Committee is entitled to
know what is the underlying idea and what has compelled the change. Is the Minister silent because he does not want it to go out to the country what the Government are attempting to do? I hope we shall find supporters not merely on this side but on the other side as well. I feel that the present law, which permits each case of misconduct to be discussed entirely on its merits, with a disqualification of benefit for six weeks as a maximum, is ample.

8.56 p.m.

Sir GEORGE HUME: I hope the Minister will give very serious consideration to the points that have been raised. It may be that I do not understand the full effect of this proviso, but it seems to me that it would very possibly open the door to great injustice. The referees are human, and they work under great pressure. I know of very hard cases in the practical carrying out of unemployment insurance administration, and I fear that the proviso will open the door to the possibility of very great hardships being imposed on individuals. After all, why should we jump straight away from six weeks to six months? It seems a tremendous step to take and, when we realise what it means in poor families, I would put pressure on the Minister to give the matter very serious consideration indeed.

8.58 p.m.

Sir H. BETTERTON: The speeches we have heard in support of the Amendment show some misconceptions which I will endeavour to correct. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) suggested that the proviso was inserted in consequence of a report of the Federation of British Industries. I have not read that report, though after the advertisement given it by the hon. Member I will certainly do so. The hon. Member also said that the Ministry is under the influence of extraneous bodies. It is quite right that the Minister of Labour, or any other Minister, should receive representations from interested bodies, but that is a wholly different thing from being under their influence.

Mr. BEVAN: I did not say the Minister, but the Ministry.

Sir H. BETTERTON: I do not think that explanation is much better. Another misconception appeared in the
speeches of the hon. Members for Mansfield (Mr. C. Brown) and Greenwich (Sir G. Hume) who both seemed to think that this six months was mandatory. In fact, it is a period beyond which the disqualification cannot go. It is permissive, and it is not necessarily imposed. If there is any misconception on that point, I should like at once to remove it. The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) was a little unreasonable. He said I had not given any reasons why this proviso was put into the Bill at all. I will tell the Committee at once why it was put in. It was in consequence of a direct recommendation made by the Royal Commission. That reason has been sometimes rather mocked at and regarded as no reason at all, but the Royal Commission was set up by the party opposite and composed of persons nominated by them and its terms of reference were settled by them. Suppose we turned down all these recommendations one after the other; it would have been said, "Here you have had a most impartial, careful inquiry by people nominated by us and you have disregarded or turned down every recommendation they have made." Any responsible Minister who had to frame a Bill after such a prolonged inquiry would be bound to give some consideration to the views expressed by so authoritative a body. I will read the recommendation that the Royal Commission made on the subject:
We believe that in cases of refusal of an offer of employment or of loss of employment through misconduct, or leaving voluntarily, the evidence before courts of referees is sometimes such as would convince a court beyond any reasonable doubt that the claimant had not only refused or failed to apply for employment or had lost his employment through his own fault, but also that he was not anxious to obtain employment at all. In such cases we consider that the court should have power to record a finding to that effect and should have power, not only to disallow benefit for the maximum period of six weeks, but to suspend benefit thereafter until the claimant, on a new claim, had satisfied the statutory authorities that he would normally seek to obtain his livelihood by means of insurable employment. Such indefinite suspensions of benefit are now made under the conditions for the receipt of transitional payments and we think that they would be appropriate, in an insurance scheme, to the limited number of cases where a period of disallowance of six weeks does not meet the needs of the case. Until reasonable uniformity among courts of referees in the
exercise of this power has been established we consider that indefinite suspension of benefit should in all cases give a right of appeal to the Umpire.
The Committee will observe from that statement that the Royal Commission proposed something more drastic.

9.3 p.m.

Mr. MAINWARING: The right hon. Gentleman is dealing with the position of certain specific cases, about which everyone is satisfied, of men having deliberately neglected their work and having been dismissed. Will the right hon. Gentleman apply himself to the thousands of cases which occur in the industrial life of this country where such a charge cannot be levelled. There are thousands of cases which courts of referees have judged to be fifty-fifty—50 per cent. the fault of the employer and 50 per cent. the fault of the workman. The right hon. Gentleman is seeking to apply the recommendations of the commission probably to tens of thousands of workmen against whom no such charge can be levelled.

Sir H. BETTERTON: I will give a short answer to the point raised by the hon. Gentleman and say that those are cases which have gone to the courts of referees, who have taken action upon the points raised.

Mr. MAINWARING: In thousands of those cases the courts of referees would have decided a mere nominal disqualification It might be three days or six days, but it is a disqualification. A disqualification of three days is as effective as a disqualification of six days. These may be very minor "crimes" in the first instance, but they have a more serious disqualification on the second occasion.

Sir H. BETTERTON: I do not want to pursue that particular aspect of the question except to state that the points which the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Rhondda (Mr. Mainwaring) has just made are, no doubt, cases which courts of referees would consider, and it does not in the least follow that courts of referees would make the disqualification longer than the few days to which he refers. But when I come to the Amendment I am in a difficulty. I have said more than once that I wanted to consider all these Amendments on their
merits and to give full regard to the recommendations. When I desire to accept an Amendment or endeavour to make what would be regarded as less hard some provision in the Bill, I am told that I am trying to trick the Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If, on the other hand, I say that I do not accept an Amendment because I think that it is a bad one, I am told that I am hard and relentless, and do not in the least mean what I said, when I stated with all sincerity that I wanted to consider each Amendment on its merits. Therefore, I am in some little difficulty in dealing with the present Amendment.
There is a consideration which is far stronger than that which has been put by any hon. Member to-night. It was referred to yesterday, and the point was made to some extent by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and by other hon. Members. Under the Bill the Insurance Scheme will cover people who have a good record of employment, and insurance benefit as we know it will only be paid to persons far 26 weeks in the benefit year with a possible maximum of 52. Therefore, the class of person who comes within the Bill has, for the reason I have stated, whether a man or woman, almost certainly a fairly good record of employment, or else the person does not come within the provisions of this part of the Bill at all. I do not believe—and the point has been made already—that there are among this class of persons many people who persistently refuse to take suitable employment. In the first place, I do not think they want to do that, and in the second place, under the Bill, it is to their interest to remain within Part I of the Bill and get the benefit of the insurance rates within it. That fact I am prepared to accept, and these considerations have persuaded me to accept the Amendment. I feel that I ought not perhaps to yield to an almost irresistible impulse to refuse the Amendment if my object and purpose is to be misunderstood. I think, however, that I ought to have regard to these really weighty reasons, and in the circumstances of the case I am prepared to accept it.

Mr. BATEY: I should like the Minister to answer the question put by the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Macmillan). When persons are disallowed, do they go under Part II?

Sir H. BETTERTON: It does not arise.

Mr. LAWSON: We appreciate the spirit in which the Minister has met the arguments which we have put forward on the Amendment, and we appreciate the fact that he has an open mind upon these matters.

Mr. MACMILLAN: There are, as I understand it, certain people who are disqualified under the existing law for a six weeks' period or less. We are leaving out six months, and there will still be people under the existing law who are disqualified for the six weeks' period. Will the Minister answer that point?

The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the hon. Member will communicate with the Minister afterwards, as we have got beyond that point.

Mr. MACMILLAN: Is not the Amendment still before the House?

The CHAIRMAN: Yes, but the first "six weeks" are not included in the words which are proposed to be left out. The first "six weeks" are in the paragraph which we have already passed.

Mr. MACMILLAN: Perhaps I may have an opportunity of raising the matter later.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for accepting the Amendment. It is a very important Amendment as far as the tinplate trade in South Wales is concerned. There are many certain happenings in regard to machinery for which men are liable to be either suspended or dismissed, but, if the right hon. Gentleman will look at the rules of our conciliation board, he will find that we have had put in a special clause which provides that no man shall be suspended or dismissed before an official of his society shall have appeared to negotiate the case for the man. There are many tinplate workers and steel workers to whom the employers look up to as reliable, trustworthy men. We have the hon. Member for Neath (Sir W. Jenkins), a conductor of a choir in a church. Take the case of the conductor of a choir being dismissed and being able to put up a case that he ought not to be dismissed. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that if the Amendment had not been accepted there would have been
strikes in the tinplate trade. Let us imagine a man like the hon. Member for Neath or the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) being dismissed as the result of some spite or spleen on the part of a foreman. The result would be that the trade union leader would instruct the men not to work on the next shift. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has accepted the Amendment, because it fits in with the clause that we have in operation so far as our conciliation board is concerned. I hope, if we convince the right hon. Gentleman on other Amendments, that he will accept them with the same grace that he has accepted this Amendment.

9.18 p.m.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: This is a happy, auspicious occasion, and I hope that it will be the precursor of many others. I desire to express our thanks to the Minister for the concession. There was an Amendment on the Order Paper in the names of some of my hon. Friends on these benches which was designed to effect the same purpose as the Amendment that has been accepted.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

9.19 p.m.

Mr. MACMILLAN: What will be the position of the men who, as the Clause now stands, are disqualified for six weeks from drawing benefit? Will they be under the board set up under Part II of the Bill or under the public assistance committee?

Mr. HUDSON: They will come under Part II of the Bill if they fulfil the conditions set out in Clause 35.

Mr. MACMILLAN: They will not be ruled out of Part II merely because of the fact that they have been disqualified?

Mr. HUDSON: No, Sir.

CLAUSE 9.—(Definition of dependent child.)

9.20 p.m.

Mr. BATEY: I beg to move, in page 7, line 36, to leave out from the second "or" to "is" in line 38.
Our Amendment leaves out the words "is between the ages of fourteen and sixteen years," and is intended to provide that a child at any age if it is dependent upon anyone drawing benefit shall be entitled to the children's allowance. Take the case of a child at school whose father is unemployed and entitled to draw benefit in respect of the child until it is 16 years of age. I had a case during the Recess where a child reached the age of 16 but was not allowed to leave school until the end of the school term, which meant staying at school for two or three months after attaining 16 years of age. Although the child is compelled to remain at school until the end of the school term the benefit has been stopped to the father in respect of the child. When the age was put up to 14 there were words in the Act that benefit had to be paid in respect of a child until it reached the age of 14 or until the end of the school term. The words "the end of the school term" are missing now, with the result that the benefit stops when the child reaches the age of 16, although it has to remain at school until the end of the school term. We say that so long as the child is dependent upon a father in receipt of benefit the parent ought to be able to draw benefit for the child.

9.23 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: The effect of the Amendment if it were passed would go beyond what appears from his speech to be the intention of the hon. Member. I gather that his intention is merely to provide that benefits should continue to be paid up to the end of the term in which the child attains its 16th birthday. But the effect of the Amendment would be that the benefit would be payable in respect of children over the age of 16 for an indefinite period. That is an Amendment which cannot be accepted, and I hope the hon. Member will not press it.

Mr. BATEY: Are we to understand that the Parliamentary Secretary will be willing to bring up words on the Report stage to meet the point to the end of the school term?

Mr. HUDSON: I must not be misunderstood to give any definite undertaking. It is a very difficult point, but I will see if it can be met, although I do not think that that is very likely.

9.25 p.m.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: A number of education authorities, where a child agrees to take the higher classes of the school after the age of 14, make him give a written undertaking that he will remain at the school until 16. In many cases, if the child's 16th birthday should happen before the end of the school term, he must, according to the signed declaration, remain until the end of the term. As a consequence, there might be a period of two or three months after he reaches the age of 16 during which, according to the wording of the Act, his parent, if unemployed, may not receive any allowance in respect of him.

Mr. HUDSON: I was quite aware of the particular circumstances mentioned by the hon. Member. The difficulty has been brought to my attention during the last two or three days, and it was that difficulty which I undertook to look into in order to see if we could find a solution. But I must not be taken to say that a solution is probable.

Mr. MACLEAN: Then the hon. Member implies that the difficulty is a severe one. The principle that has been mentioned is a fairly general one. I do not want an undertaking, but may we hope that where a child has to remain at school from his 16th birthday until the end of the term, the Government will put down an Amendment along the lines of ours, to carry on the benefit until the school-leaving period of that child?

9.27 p.m.

Mr. COVE: I am very glad that the Parliamentary Secretary says that he will endeavour to find some solution of this problem. I was rather disturbed when he seemed to indicate that no solution could be found. Obviously, it is in the interests of the secondary school child even more than in those of the elementary school child. As I understand it, it would apply more particularly to the child who had been put into a secondary school. Here, I should imagine, from the educational point of view, and from that of the prospects of the child, it would be a greater hardship to prevent the payment of the allowance beyond the age of 16 than it would be for an elementary school child beyond the age of 14. It is generally known that, before the children are accepted—particularly
scholarship children—into the secondary schools they have to give an undertaking that they will remain there for a certain length of time, and it often happens, of course, that the qualifying examinations—matriculation and so on—do not come at the exact age of 16, but there is a lag over of a few months. It would be a very good thing to help these children to remain at school until they had qualified; and it would certainly ease the position of this type of parent, who has already been making great sacrifices to keep the child in the secondary school, if the Minister could find some way out. I frankly confess that, as he said, it may be difficult. I do not know whether this is a practical suggestion, but it has just occurred to me and I give it him now for what it is worth. Some provision might be made for the allowance to be carried over until the child has a chance to qualify, for instance, for the matriculation examination. I hope that the Minister will consider the matter very seriously and very sympathetically, and that some result will follow.

9.31 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: I wish to support the proposals put before the Committee by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove). I understand that the Parliamentary Secretary limits the promise he made to the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) to the question of the child of 16, and that he is prepared to consider the two or three months that may be necessary to complete the school term before the child leaves. Since he is going to consider the problem, will he consider it on the wider ground? I do not know what are the exact terms that govern this question of dependency so far as Income Tax rebates are concerned, but I know that Income Tax rebates in respect of dependent children continue up to the age where a boy has completed his scholastic course. I think that the Noble Lady has had experience of that provision.

Viscountess ASTOR: Not at all; my income is taken away without a means test.

Mr. MAXTON: I find no objection to that, if the Noble Lady's possessions are as is commonly believed. I hope that no undue hardship has been imposed on her; if it has, she will
become subject to my sympathy instead of my envy. If the Minister examines that provision I think he will find that it is quite possible for an Income Tax payer to have exemption for a son or daughter up to the age of 24, 25 or even more who is being educated at some recognised institution. I cannot see why the same principle should not be applied to the dependant allowance of the unemployed man. The hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) raised in the House the other day the very hard case of a young man in Glasgow who had been denied a bursary to maintain him at a secondary school or a university on the ground that his father was unemployed or too poor to maintain him there. Surely we are not going to visit the father's unemployment sins on the child to a greater extent than is absolutely necessary. If an unemployed father is by some desperate device or other endeavouring to give his son an extended education, why should we not at least give him the amount of recognition for the dependency of that son which is given to an Income Tax payer in similar circumstances? I do not know the exact terms, nor do I know the place where the Income Tax provision is laid down by Statute, but I ask the Minister, in his consideration of this matter, to examine that provision and see if it cannot be applied in exactly the same way to unemployment dependency.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I was going to make the same point. There is a class distinction in this matter. The parent who is unemployed, and who has a child on full-time education does not get dependant's allowance when the child is over 16 years of age, but in the case of the son of a person paying Income Tax

who is undergoing full-time instruction, up to whatever age, dependant's allowance is given. We are asking that, irrespective of the age of a child, if a boy or girl is undergoing full-time education the parent, as long as the boy or girl is entirely dependent on him, should enjoy dependant's allowance. That is a reasonable request. As the situation is now there is this class distinction. If a person pays Income Tax he gets, shall I call it, this dole, but if, on the other hand, he is a working-class man out of work and the child is over 16 and completing a term at school then the dependant's allowance ceases just at a time when the strain on the parent is much greater than ever before. I think the Government might concede this request. They have made two concessions, and three is a good round figure. There is no reason why they should not, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will accept the Amendment or give an undertaking of a somewhat firmer nature.

9.37 p.m.

Miss PICKFORD: I should like to urge the Parliamentary Secretary to consider the possibility of including boys and girls whose parents have undertaken to keep them at a secondary school until they are 16, or until the end of a term. They have undertaken this secondary course, and it is of the greatest importance that it should be completed; otherwise, much of it will be wasted. No doubt it is a matter of some technical difficulty, but I cannot think it is beyond the ingenuity of the Parliamentary Secretary or the Parliamentary draftsman to meet these cases.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 239; Noes, 66.

Division No. 80.]
AYES.
[9.39 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bateman, A. L.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th.C.)
Burghley, Lord


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Burnett, John George


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)


Albery, Irving James
Boothby, Robert John Graham
Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Boulton, W. W.
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Caporn, Arthur Cecil


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Castlereagh, Viscount


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Boyce, H. Leslie
Cautley, Sir Henry S.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Clarry, Reginald George


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Brass, Captain Sir William
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Balniel, Lord
Broadbent, Colonel John
Colfox, Major William Philip


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Conant, R. J. E.


Cooke, Douglas
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Ross, Ronald D.


Cooper, A. Duff
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Copeland, Ida
Law, Sir Alfred
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Cranborne, Viscount
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Runge, Norah Cecil


Crooke, J. Smedley
Lees-Jones, John
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Levy, Thomas
Russell,Hamer Field (Sheffield,B'tside)


Crossley, A. C.
Liddall, Walter S.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Llewellin, Major John J.
Salt, Edward W.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley,
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Denville, Alfred
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Donner, P. W.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Salley, Harry R.


Dower, Captain A. V. G.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Drewe, Cedric
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
McKie, John Hamilton
Shute, Colonel J. J.


Eady, George H.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Eastwood, John Francis
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)


Eden, Robert Anthony
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hailam)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Maitland, Adam
Somervell, Sir Donald


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Martin, Thomas B.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Spens, William Patrick


Everard, W. Lindsay
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Meller, Sir Richard James
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Stevenson, James


Fox, Sir Gifford
Milne, Charles
Storey, Samuel


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Gault, Lieut.-Col, A. Hamilton
Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Gibson, Charles Granville
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Gledhill, Gilbert
Morrison, William Shephard
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Moss, Captain H. J.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Goff, Sir Park
Munro, Patrick
Tate, Mavis Constance


Gower, Sir Robert
Nall, Sir Joseph
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Thompson, Sir Luke


Graves, Marjorie
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Greene, William P. C.
North, Edward T.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Grimston, R. V.
Nunn, William
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Gritten, W. G. Howard
O'Connor, Terence James
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Train, John


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Palmer, Francis Noel
Tree, Ronald


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Pearson, William G.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Peat, Charles U.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Penny, Sir George
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Hanbury, Cecil
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Petherick, M.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Pike, Cecil F.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Hepworth, Joseph
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Horobln, Ian M.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Horsbrugh, Florence
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Ratcliffe, Arthur
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-
Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Womersley, Walter James


James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)


Jamieson, Douglas
Remer, John R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Rickards, George William
Major George Davies and Commander Southby.


Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Ropner, Colonel L.



Kerr, Hamilton W.
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Harris, Sir Percy


Attlee, Clement Richard
Dobbie, William
Holdsworth, Herbert


Banfield, John William
Edwards, Charles
Janner, Barnett


Batey, Joseph
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Jenkins, Sir William


Bernays, Robert
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Buchanan, George
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Kirkwood, David


Cape, Thomas
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Lawson, John James


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro',W.)
Leonard, William


Cove, William G.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Logan, David Gilbert


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Groves, Thomas E.
Lunn, William


Curry, A. C.
Grundy, Thomas W.
McEntee, Valentine L.


Daggar, George
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)




Mainwaring, William Henry
Price, Gabriel
Tinker, John Joseph


Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Rathbone, Eleanor
Walihead, Richard C.


Maxton, James
Rea, Walter Russell
White, Henry Graham


Milner, Major James
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Nathan, Major H. L.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Owen, Major Goronwy
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)



Paling, Wilfred
Smith, Tom (Normanton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Parkinson, John Allen
Thorne, William James
Mr. C. Macdonald and Mr. John.


Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

9.47 p.m.

Mr. COVE: I beg to move, in page 8, line 1, to leave out "prevented from receiving," and to insert "unable to receive."
This, of course, is a rather narrower Amendment than the last, but it is still of some importance to those whom it will concern. The Clause defines the dependent child. It states that a child is dependent when it is
between the ages of 14 and 16 years and is maintained wholly or mainly by him and is either

(i) a person under full time instruction at a day school; or
(ii) a person who is prevented from receiving such instruction by reason of physical or mental infirmity."

I want to delete the words "prevented from receiving" and to insert in their place the words "unable to receive." I understand that the position at the present time is that the umpire has ruled that those children who are ill and whose parents therefore cannot enter into any agreement that they shall go to school, are not dependent; in other words that before dependency can be claimed and a dependant's allowance accrue, the parent must have entered into an agreement that the child shall have continued education to the age of 16 years. The Amendment provides that if a child is ill and its parents cannot enter therefore into such an agreement, the child shall be regarded as a dependant and shall be able to get the dependant's allowance. I understand also that the umpire says that if an allowance of that kind is paid it will not be a dependency allowance but an allowance for sickness. We desire that the child should not start with this handicap. It may be that the physical infirmity will pass away and that the child may come under the qualification for being a dependant. I hope that the Minister will be able to meet us in the matter.

9.52 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN: I beg to support the Amendment. I know that the Minister
and members of the Committee may think that this is a sentimental appeal, but sentiment in the life of a nation—

Mr. HUDSON: May I interrupt? I am advised that the Amendment would make no difference whatever to the Clause. It would merely put back the words that exist in the law as it stands to-day. The umpire has interpreted the words "unable to receive," used in the Act of 1930, as meaning "prevented from receiving," and we have merely made the alteration in order to conform with the ruling of the umpire. I have no objection to accepting the Amendment, though it does not make any difference in the law. It will not achieve the object that hon. Members have in view.

Mr. LOGAN: Do I understand that although this Committee may decide what the future of this Bill is to be, no matter what determination the Committee may reach it is the opinion of the Minister that we are to be governed by what the umpire may think?

Mr. HUDSON: The only reason why I interrupted was for the convenience of the Committee, to try to explain that the two sets of words mean exactly the same thing.

Mr. LOGAN: I am thoroughly aware of the meaning of words, but what I am at a loss to understand is the meaning of the Parliamentary Secretary. There are so many things that are accepted in this House just by words that it is better to know exactly where we stand here. Does the Minister now make a definite statement that he is accpting our Amendment?

Mr. HUDSON: If the hon. Member presses it, certainly.

9.54 p.m.

Mr. GREENWOOD: The Parliamentary Secretary's two statements do not carry us any further forward. First he said that the Amendment makes no difference in the law, and secondly he said that it does not achieve our purpose.
What we want to know is whether he is prepared to achieve our purpose, and whether, with all the skill of the draftsmen behind him, he is prepared to deduce a form of words which will meet the point we have in mind. It may be that in the view of the umpire prevented from means the same as "unable to." But there is a point of substance which has been put to the Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove). It is no use the Parliamentary Secretary getting up and saying flippantly that he will accept our words, but that they do not make any difference and do not meet the point that we are raising. Are the Government prepared to accept our view that hardship does occur because of the unfortunate prevention of continued education owing to the sickness or infirmity of a child and that where such child would normally have been dependent it will still be regarded as dependent when the father is unemployed? The Committee are entitled to a reasoned answer and not to the rather flippant answer which the Parliamentary Secretary has made.

9.56 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: I had no intention of being flippant and if the right hon. Gentleman will put on the Paper an Amendment designed to carry out what he has in mind, we shall be very glad to give it sympathetic consideration—the consideration that it merits. All we are dealing with at the moment, however, is the actual wording on the Paper and I am advised that these words do not make any material alteration in the existing law. If hon. Members opposite prefer the words of the existing Act, I am prepared to accept the Amendment, and to retain the words that apply at present. I cannot do more than that.

9.57 p.m.

Mr. GREENWOOD: The hon. Gentleman is not making any attempt to meet us. It is a great concession to accept words which the Government tell us do not mean anything at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why put them down?"] The Parliamentary Secretary says he is advised that the words in the Amendment do not make any substantial difference and that the position would remain the same as it is at present.

Mr. HUDSON: Of course I suggest that, because the words proposed in the Amendment are the words of the existing law.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I accept that position. I am not going to argue about that point. If the Amendment does not meet the case put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) what I am asking for is not an opportunity to put down another Amendment, because we can always do that if we choose on Report. Whether such an Amendment would be debated or not if the Government take up all the time with their own Amendments is another matter. What I am asking now is: Do the Government agree that there is a point of substance here and are they prepared to accept our point, instead of throwing the onus of drafting the necessary Amendment on the Opposition who have not the resources possessed by the Government? Let us admit that we have not those resources. Will the Parliamentary Secretary say specifically whether in the view of the Government this is a point of substance and whether they are prepared to accept it?

9.59 p.m.

Mr. O'CONNOR: On a point of Order. The Committee has had presented to it an Amendment which means exactly the same as the wording in the Bill. That obviously is a sign of the complete ineptitude of official Oppositions.

Mr. GREENWOOD: Not so great as the ineptitude shown by the Government.

Mr. O'CONNOR: They have put down this Amendment and solemnly wasted the time of the Committee allotted under the Guillotine and they have done so for the purpose of trying to insert a form of words which they now agree themselves are the same as the words in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman, then asks the Committee to consider some other words which are not on the Paper, words which he himself has not attempted to formulate, in order to give expression to something which is not in the Amendment before the Committee. Is that in order?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: In reply to the hon. and learned Member, when I saw this Amendment on the Paper I was somewhat puzzled as to the object which
the hon. Member who moved it had in view, but I thought that he might explain its meaning in his speech. The hon. Member in moving the Amendment did indicate the point which he wished to raise although possibly the words of the Amendment are not exactly suited for the purpose which he described.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. COVE: We have had a contribution from a very superior person, a man who is learned in the law but who is obviously not very sympathetic as far as these children are concerned, in the intervention of the hon. and learned Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor). The Parliamentary Secretary admitted that there was some substance in our point and offered no objection at all to what we were striving to put forward. He went so far as to say that if we defined the form of words the Government would have no objection to accepting it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Well, he said he would consider it sympathetically and obviously that meant that he was expressing the view of the Department that they would look into the matter. If they were going to consider it sympathetically I take it that such consideration ought to mean and would mean that they would accept our case. This is a small incident showing how valuable the Minister of Labour is to the Government in piloting this Bill. If the hon. Gentleman's chief had been here, I am sure we would not have had the attitude towards this Amendment which has been taken up by the Parliamentary Secretary. It is obvious that this Bill would not have such an easy passage as it is having if the Under-Secretary were in charge and I would advise him to reflect the attitude and the spirit of his chief.
Is the hon. Gentleman really concerned about these children? He has expressed a sympathetic attitude. He has at his disposal technical resources which a small Opposition cannot command. He has around him a good many hon. Gentlemen who are learned in the law and he has experts in his Department. It seems a mean and a miserable thing for the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Central Nottingham to suggest that we are wasting time in discussing a matter of this kind. For the first three or four hours of this Sitting we were unable to
discuss a single Opposition Amendment because this unready Government had presented a manuscript Amendment. Not a single point that we put upon the Paper could be discussed in the earlier stages of this Sitting owing to the Government's action. To-day's proceedings have been a disgraceful exhibition on the part of the Government and I want to tell the Parliamentary Secretary now that if the attitude which he has taken towards this Amendment is going to be shown throughout these Debates, very stormy times are in store for the Government in connection with the passage of this Bill. I advise him not to get up with a supercilious air and poke fun at the Opposition but to deal with the point of substance which we have put forward and to use the technical resources at his disposal to find the appropriate words which will effect justice in the case of these children. Never mind beating a little Opposition. Never mind sneering at it. Do something for these children with the resources that you have at your disposal.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. MACLEAN: The Parliamentary Secretary says that the words of the Opposition's Amendment mean precisely the same as the words in the Bill, and he submits that our words are the words of the Act. Are we to understand that he has made a meaningless change in the law by inserting the words in the Bill that are already covered by the previous Act of Parliament and the wording of which could easily have been the words that we are seeking to insert? Or do he and his chief believe that the alteration in the wording of the Bill really means some kind of alteration in the administration of the Act? If that is the case, will he inform the Committee in what way the umpire's decisions based upon the wording of the present Act will be affected by the new wording of the Bill as submitted by the Government? If there is to be an alteration, let us know how it is to be made, since he maintains that our words will not alter the umpire's decisions.

10.6 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: The reason why we have made the alteration is that we thought it would be for the general convenience to use the words that are currently used by the umpire in his decisions. The umpire has interpreted two sets of
words as meaning the same thing, and for the general convenience we thought it desirable to make this alteration accordingly. There has been no alteration in the meaning of the law, and there will be no alteration in administration. That is why I am perfectly prepared to accept the Amendment standing in the name of the party opposite to restore the words which are in the Act of 1930.

10.7 p.m.

Mr. MACLEAN: Are we to understand that the Government accept the umpire's decision as being the law—[Interruption.] I am asking a question of the Parliamentary Secretary, not of the First Commissioner of Works, who would be doing his job properly if he were giving employment to some of those in his Department who are unemployed. I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary if the Government are accepting the umpire's decisions now and are standardising them in the present Bill, seeing that they have inflicted hardship upon many working-class families in which there are sick children who are unable to go to educational institutions after the age of 14 years.

10.8 p.m.

Sir EDWARD CAMPBELL: I should like to ask the Leader of the Opposition, whoever he may be at the moment, whether he admits that there is nobody in his party capable of drafting an Amendment containing the views which have been expressed by himself and two or three other Members of his party. We have come to an extraordinary pass when an Opposition admits in the House of Commons that they have views, but that they are quite incapable of putting them on paper. If that is the alternative Government, God save the country.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. MAINWARING: The Parliamentary Secretary was good enough to inform us that because the umpire has interpreted the words "unable to receive" as being prevention from receiving, they immediately assume that they are interchangeable. I submit to the hon. and learned Member opposite that that is a form of interpretation that none of them would accept in a court of law, that the two sets of words are interchangeable in that manner. The words "unable to receive" are, in the opinion
of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, really no less than prevention to receive, and, on the other hand, prevention to receive may be nothing more nor less than unable to receive. If the Government have seen it well to consult the umpire in the first place before daring to use his name here in justification of what they now say, they should also invite the umpire to express an opinion on the alteration now proposed. If the umpire is to decide it, they should ask him to decide it before coming here. They are extending the powers of the umpire. I know that under the Unemployment Insurance Acts the umpire is entitled to interpret words, but they have now advanced to a stage where he is responsible for legislation itself.

Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: On a point of Order. If the Government accept the Amendment put down by the Opposition, cannot we get on with more serious work?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That appears to me to be a matter for the Opposition.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. McENTEE: If the Parliamentary Secretary would give us a little attention, and if hon. Members opposite would also give us a little attention, it might be well for the Committee, and it might be to the advantage of the children concerned. The words of the original Act mentioned by the Financial Secretary were not very clear to interpret, and as a consequence of that they were submitted to the umpire for his decision. The umpire gave a decision, and as a consequence a considerable number of sick children were prevented from being considered dependent children. The point arises as to whether or not there is a desire on the part of the Government to place these children in the position of dependent children. It is not unusual in this House for words to be put down by an Opposition, and I and other hon. Members have known scores of occasions when replies have been given by the Minister concerned to the effect that he sees the purpose of the Amendment, but that the words suggested do not meet that purpose, and that therefore, although not willing to accept the actual Amendment, he will give considera-
tion to the purpose intended and at a later stage will himself suggest words to meet it.
Either the Parliamentary Secretary desires to bring these children within the category of dependent children, or he does not. They were struck out and came outside the Act because of a decision of the umpire. Nobody disputes that. The desire of most Members would be to bring them within the term "dependent," and all we are asking is that the Parliamentary Secretary shall say one way or the other whether the Government desire them to be considered dependent. To try to ride away, as he and his friends are doing, on an attempt to score a cheap point off the Opposition is very mean, and most of us thought that he, at any rate, would act in a bigger and broader way than that. I want to ask him definitely if it is the desire of the Government to shut these children out of benefit? If it is, why does not the Parliamentary Secretary say that they are invalids and that the Government do not desire to give them benefit under the Act? It was undoubtedly the intention of the framers of the original Act that they should be considered as dependent. If it is not the desire of the Government to put them out of benefit, is he willing to do what has been done on hundreds of occasions and meet the Opposition, framing a set of words to insert in the Bill the intention of the original Act?

10.17 p.m.

Mr. A. BEVAN: I want to press the Parliamentary Secretary to give a reply to the questions which have been addressed to him. I remember in the last Parliament, when we had the Widows' and Old Age Pensions Measure before us, the Conservative Opposition of over 200 strong put down a number of Amendments, many of which did not incorporate their intention, and my right hon. Friend, who was then Minister of Health, pointed out on many occasions that the words that had been selected by experts like the hon. and learned Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor) and others did not meet their own intentions, and that he would incorporate words that would do so on the Report stage. All the public school boys were in that party and with all their
intelligence they failed to put down Amendments in a proper manner. I want to know whether the Government supporters are anxious to provide benefit for these children or provide half an hour's amusement for themselves? This Chamber was empty for most of the evening when we were discussing other Clauses, and so badly worded is the Bill itself and so uncertain were the Government about their intentions in the Bill, that they accepted one Amendment. All day yesterday we were discussing the Ministry's own muddle about their Bill, and now hon. Members opposite are suggesting that we are committing a grievous offence because, in putting an Amendment down, we have committed a blunder.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary treat the Committee with the courtesy with which up to now the Government have been treated on this Bill, and tell us that he agrees that a sick child who is unable to attend school up to 16 shall be eligible for benefit? Will he tell the Committee that he agrees that parents should receive benefit in respect of such children and, on the Report stage, insert words in the Bill to give effect to that intention? Is that unreasonable? It has been asked for over and over again. It is perfectly reasonable for the Opposition to say that the Minister must answer a plain question in which, as he admits, there is a point of substance; but he will not answer it, and I want to suggest to hon. Members that by this sort of nonsense—[Laughter]—by that sort of nonsense—the Government are really bringing the House and themselves into discredit. The House knows very well that the Opposition is composed of a very small number of Members, and of Members who are unable to obtain the assistance of private secretaries such as many hon. Members in other parts of the House possess. We have not got legal help. [HON. MEMBERS: "Cripps!"] Hon. Members know very well that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) has not the time at his disposal. He is engaged in making trouble for the Conservatives in the country, and cannot devote all his time to matters of this kind.
I therefore suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary should now bring this discussion to a close by replying to the
question which has been put. Is he prepared, on the Report stage, to insert in the Bill words which will give effect to the intentions of the Government? I am sure that, despite the hilarity and good humour shown over this question, Members in all parts of the Committee are anxious that this anomaly should be put right. Obviously, it is an anomaly. The old law intended that the parent should receive the money in respect of the child. Everybody knows that this is a reasonable request, and I feel that the Parliamentary Secretary would be meeting the wishes of everyone if he said he was prepared to insert words to give effect to that intention.

10.24 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: I rise to deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan). This is an Amendment which was on the Paper proposing to insert certain words, and I accepted it on behalf of the Government. It has turned out, in the course of the Debate, that some point which was not raised by the Amendment at all and which, to the best of my knowledge, has nothing to do with the Amendment, was the point which hon. Members really had in mind. I have said that if hon. Members will draft an Amendment and come and discuss it with me I will certainly give it consideration. Obviously I am not in a position to give an answer on a particular point which has never been put on the Paper but is raised suddenly in Debate and does not arise out of the Amendment. I think I have met reasonably the appeal that has been made by saying that if hon. Members will draft an Amendment and come to see me I will certainly give it consideration and see whether anything can be done.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: I have listened for a considerable time to the discussion, and have been trying to find out what it is all about. I can conceive circumstances under which the words "prevented from receiving" are different from "unable to receive." One might be prevented from speaking, as I have been in this House, but I recollect no occasion up to now when I was unable to speak; but that is obviously a case where the words have a different meaning. Reading these words with their context, they clearly have no different meaning. The hon. Member who spoke last from
the Opposition Benches made a very earnest appeal to the Minister to make a concession. My hon. Friends and I have been trying to find out what he wanted. He has not expressed in any words which are intelligible to a person of ordinary intelligence what it is that he desires. Nobody sitting here has the faintest idea. Obviously the Minister is right not to give any pledge as to his treatment of any Amendment that may be drafted, until he knows precisely what it means. I am surprised at an Opposition which can move an Amendment, be disgusted when it is accepted, and then express profound dissatisfaction because nobody has understood what they are incapable of putting into plain English. [An HON. MEMBER: "Legal English!"] Not legal English. All that we want to know is what is the meaning? Ultimately the decision lies with this Committee, and we are entitled to be informed of the complaint of the hon. Gentleman. On the Report stage ultimately, when this matter is raised again, we shall need to have some understanding as to the issue that has been raised to-night, but neither my hon. Friends nor myself who have been listening to the discussion, have the slightest idea as to what is the subject under discussion.

10.28 p.m.

Mr. COVE: A few minutes ago I made some remarks about the attitude for the time being of the Parliamentary Secretary. I now wish very heartily to thank him for the spirit that he has displayed in the latter part of this Debate, and to say that we appreciate it on this side of the Committee. We shall take advantage of the offer that he has made. I hope that we may now draw this discussion to a close.

Amendment agreed to.

10.29 p.m.

Mr. JAMES JOHNSTON: I beg to move, in page 8, line 35, at the end, to add:
For the purposes of this Section and of the Unemployment Insurance Acts a child, younger brother, or younger sister, of two or more persons entitled to benefit who is not maintained wholly or mainly by any one of them but is maintained wholly or mainly by their joint contributions shall be deemed to be maintained wholly or mainly by the elder or eldest of them, and in such cases that part of paragraph (f) of Sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the Unemployment
Insurance Act, 1930, which relates to the contribution when in employment of an insured person to the cost of the maintenance of another person shall apply as if it referred to the joint contributions of these persons.
In order that benefit may be paid in respect of a child, it is necessary that the person who is to receive benefit should be someone who wholly or mainly maintains the child. Under the Unemployment Insurance Acts a person is not regarded as wholly or mainly capable of maintaining a child unless in normal circumstances that person is in employment and contributes at least one-half of the cost of the maintenance.
It may sometimes happen, and does sometimes happen, that a child is maintained by the joint funds of two or more elder members of the family, who may both or all happen to be out of employment and in receipt of benefit at the same time. In these circumstances neither all of them nor any one of them singly can obtain the dependant's benefit for the child, because no one of them singly wholly or mainly maintains the child, and in such circumstances the cost of the child's maintenance may be thrown upon the local authority and the rates, although ordinarily that child is wholly or mainly maintained by people who for the time being are in receipt of unemployment benefit. For instance, if a child is ordinarily maintained by equal contributions from, let us say, an elder brother and a father, and if both the elder brother and the father are out of employment, it sometimes happens that neither the one nor the other nor the two together can obtain the dependant's benefit for the child, because neither normally contributes at least one-half of the cost of the child's maintenance.
I believe it has been held that, where normally a father and an elder brother equally maintain a child, and they are both unemployed, the father may be regarded as the person who wholly or mainly maintains the child. But if between them they normally contribute only nine-tenths of the cost of the child's maintenance, and if they are both unemployed, neither of them is regarded as wholly or mainly maintaining the child, whereas if the child is maintained to the extent of six-tenths only by one person, that one person may obtain the de-
pendant's benefit for the child. My purpose in moving this Amendment is simply to secure that dependant's benefit as regards a child may be paid either to two or three people or to one of two or three people who normally are joint contributors to the maintenance of the child, and that they may not be deprived of that benefit to their detriment as compared with the case of the child who is maintained by one parent or elder brother or sister.
I would only say further that I do not want merely to be told that my Amendment has this or that defect, or will not work in this way or in that way. I do not in the least care how the object is achieved, and, if the Parliamentary Secretary would say that he is prepared to meet the point, I have no doubt that he could find much better words and means for doing it than I have attempted to find. All that I have tried to provide for is that in such cases as I have figured, that is to say, where normally a child is maintained by joint contributions from two or three people, when all those people are entitled to unemployment benefit the one who is the oldest should be regarded for these purposes, and for these purposes only, as the person who wholly or mainly maintains the child.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this point. It is one with which we have great sympathy, but we cannot accept the Amendment in the form in which it is drawn. There are other dependants besides children, for instance, mothers, and it is not certain that the eldest person is necessarily the best. If my hon. Friend will accept my assurance that we will bring in a new Clause embodying the substance of what he wants. I hope he will withdraw his Amendment.

10.36 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I hope the Minister will allow within the category any person, even though not a brother, who is held to be the person responsible for the upkeep of the child. Dependency has to be proved in order to secure the housekeeper's allowance, and the point that I wish to safeguard is that a person who is cut out and loses dependency for the child shall not also lose dependency for the housekeeper.

Mr. HUDSON: If the hon. Member will see me at the Ministry when we have the Clause drafted, I will go into the matter with him.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

10.33 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: As I read the Clause, it is confined to dependent children, brothers and sisters to the claimant for benefit, but there is also the question of adopted children. A grandfather may have grandchildren in his charge. Under the Adoption of Children Act anyone can adopt children whose parents are dead, but I am informed that under the law of Scotland grandparents cannot adopt their grandchildren although the grandparents are responsible at law for their maintenance. I ask that in this case the law that applies to a brother or a sister should apply to grandparents as well. In many cases it is not the brother who is responsible for the child's maintenance but the grandfather. In view of the fact that the law has held grandparents responsible, I think that they ought to get the benefit of any Unemployment Acts which are going. The grandparent is the only person held to be in the same relationship as the mother and father, and should be put on the same footing.

Mr. HUDSON: The point which has been raised by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) is, I confess, a new one to me. I will certainly look into the matter and let him know whether there is anything we can do to meet the question.

CLAUSE 10.—(Amendments as to increase of benefit in respect of dependants.)

10.42 p.m.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: I beg to move, in page 8, line 36, to leave out Sub-section (1).
There is great hardship as far as this Sub-section is concerned. We have discovered on many occasions in compensation cases that men have omitted to report an accident to the employer and have been deprived of compensation.
The same thing will apply here. I will give an illustration. A boy commences to work between the ages of 14 and 16 years, and the factory where he is employed may become idle. The appellant is then expected to report in the prescribed form to the Employment Exchange that the boy is idle. There are many employers of labour here who know what happens. You have a breakage in machinery. You go to the foreman who will say, "The machinery will not be ready for three or four days." But it is discovered, after having given an order to an engineering shop for whatever is required, that the works will not be able to be restarted for three weeks or, may be, a month. The appellant, as a result of the report given by the boy that the works would restart in three or four days, would consequently not make an application on behalf of the boy. That would be a very great hardship, because until the day he made the application he would be deprived of benefit due in respect of his boy. Therefore I suggest that if it is a genuine case and the parent can prove to an official of the society by document from the office that the boy has been idle for a certain time, that he should not be deprived of benefit, and that the Minister should consider between now and the Report stage the addition of words so that any cases that arise may be met.

10.46 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: The object of this Sub-section is not that of meeting the sort of cases that the hon. Member has in view. Its object is to ensure that an insured person shall make a claim for dependant's benefit, roughly speaking, at the same time as he makes his own claim or as soon as the dependant becomes entitled to benefit. What happens at present is that it is laid down that an insured person cannot draw ordinary benefit before he has made a claim in the prescribed manner, but that does not apply in the case of his dependants and therefore it often happens that months and even years elapse before suddenly a man realises that he might have made a claim. He then makes the claim and may be entitled to arrears in respect of the dependants for the months or years. It is often very difficult, however, after that lapse of time, to determine whether or not such dependants were entitled to benefit,
and it is in order to obviate that difficulty that this Sub-section has been put down. It merely says that a man must make a claim for dependants' benefit in the prescribed manner, and it further says that regulations will be made governing the matter. There are specific words in the Clause to cover the point raised by the hon. Member. It is provided that regulations may be made for meeting cases of delay in making application for dependants' benefit. In the sort of case that the hon. Member has in mind where a man thought his child was only to be unemployed for two or three days and then finds that it is for two or three months, it is possible that the proposed regulations would allow the claim to be ante-dated.

10.49 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: Suppose a man was not aware that a claim in respect of his child could be made until long afterwards. Would that be a good case?

Mr. HUDSON: I should not like to answer such an hypothetical question without notice.

Mr. LAWSON: The hon. Member must know that there are cases where a child continues at school and the parent does not know for some time afterwards that he has a right to claim for benefit in that particular case. At the present time, though by the rules he has very often not given proper notice, yet because he is innocent of the conditions and unaware of the fact that he was in a position to claim, the man has not only been given the claim but also the arrears, on the ground that he was reasonably ignorant of the fact that he could claim. The actual form of the regulations may be a question of difference. It may be an exaggerated statement to say that people sometimes claim for years back. There may be odd cases. While we would not unduly press a matter of this kind, I think hon. Members would like to see some provision that claimants need not claim at a particular time or else be deprived of their right. The Government say that the regulations are to be fairly flexible.

Mr. HUDSON: I think I am quite safe in telling the hon. Member that.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. A. BEVAN: What are the regulations? Are they to be the ordinary regulations issued by the Department, or are they to be debated in the House?

Mr. HUDSON: They will be regulations within the meaning of the Act.

Mr. BEVAN: Do I understand that these are the same sort of regulations as are referred to in the powers of the Advisory Committee, and not Departmental regulations?

Mr. HUDSON: They will be submitted in draft to the Advisory Committee, and the Advisory Committee will consider them and hear any objections from interested parties in the usual form, and then report back to the Minister.

Sir H. BETTERTON: These regulations are submitted to the Statutory Committee by the Minister; the Statutory Committee make a report, and when he gets that report he makes the regulations and they are laid on the Table of the House.

10.53 p.m.

Mr. O'CONNOR: The House has only the power to reject them totally, and not to amend them. I therefore hope it will be made perfectly clear that the regulations made under this section, as would normally be the case in any court of law, will provide that mere delay owing to ignorance of the law shall not be a bar to the prosecution of any claim.

10.54 p.m.

Mr. MAINWARING: I should like to draw attention to a point in which there might be some difficulty in claiming dependency benefit. We are told that dependants being inmates of certain institutions are not regarded as dependants. Regulations ought to be sufficiently elastic to meet these several points, otherwise hardship may be inflicted on parents who may have a just claim although at the moment they may not know their rights under a particular provision.

Mr. HUDSON: That is one of the points to be considered by the Statutory Committee. All interested parties will have an opportunity of bringing forward any point they desire.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

10.55 p.m.

Mr. BOOTHBY: I should like to impress upon the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour that I do not think that the Government will get away with this proposal to maintain the children's allowances at 2s. There is a large body of opinion in this Committee that, under present conditions, with the dependent child's allowance at only 2s., far too many of the children of the unemployed in this country are definitely under-nourished. I do not believe that the House of Commons will allow that to continue for an indefinite period. Medical testimony on this question is overwhelming. We shall certainly put down an Amendment to increase dependent children's allowance on Report stage and, therefore, I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he will give an undertaking that between now and then the Government will seriously reconsider this question, upon which many hon. Members in all quarters of the House feel very keenly indeed.

10.56 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: I want to support the representations made by the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby). The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and I have an Amendment proposing that the dependants benefit should be raised to 5s. per week. We think that that is the minimum sum which is defensible. It may not be defensible on the grounds of actuarial purity but from the point of view of maintaining a child it is the least amount for which any case can be made, and it is a very weak case at that. I am not going
to argue the merits of one sum as against another, I am simply associating myself with the hon. Member's claim that the 2s. which stands in the Bill is one of which every decent person in the House must feel ashamed. No one could face any constituency on such an amount. There may be distinctions between industrial constituencies which are hard hit and other constituencies, but there are children affected by this Bill in every constituency and nobody can defend before any audience the vote which was given yesterday by which parents are asked to maintain a child on 2s. a week. I urge the Minister of Labour, for the sake of his own reputation, to face up to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or whoever he has to face on this matter, and tell him that he is not going on with the Measure unless he is prepared to allow him this concession.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Captain Margesson.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Two Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.